DEBATERS'  HANDBOOK  SERIES 


PROHIBITION  OF  THE 
LIQUOR  TRAFFIC 


DEBATERS' 
HANDBOOK  SERIES 

Debaters'  Manual 

Capital  Punishment    (2d  ed.  rev.) 

Commission  Plan  of  Municipal  Govern- 
ment (3d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Central  Bank  of  the  United  States 

Child  Labor    (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Compulsory  Arbitration  of  Industrial  Dis- 
putes (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Compulsory  Insurance 

Conservation  of  Natural  Resources 

Direct  Primaries    (3d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Election  of  United  States  Senators  (2d  ed. 
rev.) 

Employment  of  Women 

Federal  Control  of  Interstate  Corporations 
(2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Free  Trade  vs.  Protection 

Government  Ownership  of  Railroads  (2d 
ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Government  Ownership  of  Telegraph  and 
Telephone 

Immigration 

Income  Tax    (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl. ) 

Initiative  and  Referendum  (3d  ed.  rev. 
and  enl.) 

Monroe  Doctrine 

Mothers'  Pensions 

Municipal  Ownership  (2d  ed.  rev.  and 
enl.) 

National  Defense 

Open  versus  Closed  Shop    (2d  ed.) 

Parcels  Post    (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Prohibition 

Recall    (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Reciprocity 

Single  Tax 

Trade  Unions 

Woman  Suffrage    (2d  ed.  rev.) 

World  Peace 

HANDBOOK  SERIES 

Agricultural  Credit 
European  War 
Short  Ballot 
Socialism 


Other  titles  in  preparation 

Each  volume,  one  dollar  net 


Debaters9   H  an  db  o  o  k  S  er  ie  s 


SELECTED  ARTICLES 


ON 


PROHIBITION  OF  THE 
LIQUOR  TRAFFIC 


COMPILED  BY 
LAMAR  T.  BEMAN,  A.  M.,  LL.D. 

Instructor  in  the  East  High  School 
Cleveland,  Ohio 


THE  H.  W,  WILSON  COMPANY 
WHITE  PLAINS,  N.  Y.,  AND  NEW  YORK  CITY 

1915 


Published  November.  1915 


EXPLANATORY  NOTE 


"There  are  few  social  questions,"  says  the  report  of  the 
Royal  Commission  on  the  Liquor  Traffic  in  Canada,  "which  have 
been  more  anxiously  considered  than  that  of  Prohibition,  and  so 
great  and  important  is  the  question  involved,  that  almost  every 
civilized  nation  has  given  considerable  attention  to  it."  While 
the  Civil  War  in  this  country  diverted  attention  from  Pro- 
hibition to  other  public  questions,  the  present  war  in  Europe 
has  had  exactly  the  opposite  effect.  "If  drunkenness  is  danger- 
ous in  time  of  peace,"  says  Guglielmo  Ferrero,  the  eminent 
Italian  scholar,  in  his  article  in  the  Pittsburgh  Post  of  May  25, 
1915,  "it  is  much  more  so  in  time  of  war,  when  those  who  go 
to  fight  as  well  as  those  who  remain  at  home  have  need  of  all 
their  judgment  and  reflection  for  the  common  safety."  The 
knowledge  of  this  fact  explains  why  the  war  in  Europe  directed 
attention  to  Prohibition.  The  day  after  war  was  declared  the 
sale  of  absinthe  was  prohibited  in  all  France  by  military  decree, 
and  this  action  was  later  ratified  and  made  perpetual  by  act  of 
the  French  Parliament.  Russia  prohibited  the  sale  of  vodka 
a  few  weeks  after  the  beginning  of  the  war.  Somewhat  less 
extreme  measures  have  been  taken  by  several  others  of  the 
belligerent  countries. 

In  the  United  States  within  the  same  period  of  time  the 
question  has  received  more  public  attention  than  ever  before. 
Since  the  beginning  of  the  war  ten  states  have  adopted  Pro- 
hibition as  a  state-wide  measure  while  a  number  of  others  have 
considered  and  rejected  it.  It  is  now  certain  that  Prohibition 
will  come  before  the  voters  in  several  more  states  within  the 
next  year  or  two.  Public  attention  has  been  directed  to  the 
question  in  other  ways  than  by  the  act  of  a  legislature  or  the 
popular  vote  on  state-wide  Prohibition.  National  Prohibition 
by  amendment  to  the  federal  constitution  has  been  debated  and 
voted  upon  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  while  defeated, 
yet  it  received  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  in  that  body.  The 
National  Anti- Saloon  League  has  asked  for  $2,000,000  a  year 
to  carry  on  the  contest,  and  has  declared  that  it  confidently 


vi  EXPLANATORY    NOTE 

expects  to  make  the  whole  United  States  Prohibition  territory 
by  1920.  Whisky  and  brandy  have  been  dropped  from  the 
official  list  of  drugs  given  in  the  United  States  Pharmocopceia. 
The  Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Engineers,  in  their  triennial 
national  convention,  voted  uanimously  to  endorse  national  and 
state- wide  Prohibition. 

Since  Prohibition  has  received  so  much  attention  in  this 
country,  and  is  certain  to  receive  so  much  more  in  the  near 
future,  there  is  some  reason  for  adding  to  the  enormous  volume 
of  literature  already  in  existence.  In  the  Debaters'  Handbook 
Series  an  effort  is  made  to  present  fully  and  fairly  both  sides 
of  public  questions,  to  select  the  best  of  what  has  been  written 
and  to  reproduce  nothing  that  is  bitter  or  passionate.  Each 
Debaters'  Handbook  is  in  the  nature  of  a  great  debate,  in 
which  there  are  many  speakers  on  each  side.  The  readers  are 
the  judges  in  this  debate,  and  to  these  judges  the  question  is 
now  submitted.  L.  T.  B. 

September  20,  1915. 


CONTENTS 

BRIEF 

Affirmative   xi 

Negative   xv 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Briefs    xxi 

Special  Material xxi 

Bibliographies    xxii 

General  References,  Books,  etc xxiii 

General   References,   Magazine  Articles xxx 

Affirmative  References,  Books,  etc xxxvi 

Affirmative  References,   Magazine  Articles xxxix 

Negative  References,  Books,  etc xlvi 

Negative  References,  Magazine  Articles xlviii 

Special    Negative   Periodicals liii 

MAP    Iv 

INTRODUCTION    I 

GENERAL  DISCUSSION 

Coleman,  Walter  M.  Human  Biology 9 

Hall,  Winfield  S.  Relation  of  Alcohol  to  Nutrition.  Is 

Alcohol  a  Food  ? 

Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Association  10 

Hall,  Winfield  S.  Truth  About  Alcohol  and  Food 

Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Association  II 

Stewart,  G.  N.  Manual  of  Physiology 12 

Wholey,  C.  C.  Alcohol  and  Heredity 

West  Virginia  Medical  Journal  13 

Brief  Excerpts 14 

Fisher,  Isaac.  Rum  and  Remedies ..  Everybody's  Magazine  16 
Colvin,  D.  Leigh.  Congressional  Debate  on  National  Pho- 

hibition Intercollegiate  Statesman      23 


viii  CONTENTS 

AFFIRMATIVE  DISCUSSION 

Hanly,  J.  Frank.  I  Hate  the  Liquor  Traffic 31 

Ingersoll,  Robert  G.  Denunciation  of  Alcohol . .  Commoner  32 
Campbell,  Philip  P.  Hobson  Amendment 

Congressional  Record  33 

Ferguson,  William  P.  F.  Prohibition  Prohibits 

New  Encyclopedia  of  Social  Reform  36 

Hobson,  Richmond  P.  Truth  About  Alcohol 

Congressional  Record  37 

Fisher,  Irving.  Labor  Would  Gain  by  Prohibition 

American  Issue,  Ohio  Edition  52 

Capper,  Arthur.  Prohibition  in  Kansas 53 

McGuire,  A.  J.  Relationship  of  the  Liquor  Traffic  to  Agri- 
culture in  Northeastern  Minnesota 61 

Report  of  the  Northeast  Experiment  Farm  at  Grand  Rap- 
ids, Minnesota 61 

Bryan,  William  Jennings.  Case  against  Alcohol 

Commoner  65 

Blue,  Fred  O.  Prohibition  in  West  Virginia 

Pittsburgh  Dispatch  72 

Bryan,  William  Jennings.  Question  of  Compensation 

Commoner  73 

Compensation  Vindicator  75 

Odell,  Samuel  W.  Argument  in  Favor  of  Prohibition,  1914 

California  Official  77 

United  States  Supreme  Court.  Crowley  vs.  Christensen. . .  78 
Sheldon,  Charles  M.  What  Prohibition  Has  Done  for 

Kansas  Independent  81 

Connelly,  John  R.  Prohibition  in  Kansas 

Congressional  Record  83 

President's  Homes  Commission.  Report.  Total  Alcoholic 

Drink  Bill 87 

Brief  Excerpts 88 

NEGATIVE  DISCUSSION 

Miinsterberg,  Hugo.    Prohibition  and  Social  Psychology. . 

McClure's  Magazine  93 

Williams,  Dr.  Edward  H.    Question  of  Alcohol 107 

Liquor  Men's  Sweeping  Claims New  York  Times  113 

Taft,  William  H.    Four  Aspects  of  Civic  Duty 117 


CONTENTS  ix 

Committee  of  Fifty.  Summary  of  Investigations.  Pro- 
hibition    118 

Underwood,  Oscar  W.  National  Prohibition 

Congressional  Record  120 

Schuldt,  William.  Argument  against  Prohibition,  1914 

California  Official  138 

Quigley,  Eugene.     Compensation 140 

Ohio  Home  Rule  Almanac.    Vote  "No"  on  Prohibition 144 

Bartholdt,  Richard.  Ten  Reasons  Why  Prohibition  Is 
Wrong Congressional  Record  144 

Other  Side  of  the  Prohibition  Question 

Bismarck  Daily  Tribune  157 

Goebel,  Herman  P.  Personal  Rights  and  Liberties  of  Man 
Congressional  Record  160 

Mann,  James  R.  National  Prohibition 

Congressional  Record  163 

Brief    Excerpts 167 


BRIEF 


Resolved,  That  Prohibition  of  the  liquor  traffic  should  be 
adopted  as  a  state- wide  (or  national)  measure. 


AFFIRMATIVE 
INTRODUCTION 
I.    The  liquor  problem  has  baffled  all  attempts  at  solution  since 

the  beginning  of  civilization. 

II.    Recent  events  have  brought  Prohibition  forward  as  the 
one  possible  solution. 

A.  Scientific    research    has    shown    the    true    nature    of 

alcohol 

B.  The   European  war  has  made  enforced  Temperance 

necessary  in  several  countries. 

C.  Eighteen  of  our  states  have  already  adopted  Prohi- 

bition, and  others  will  soon  vote  on  it. 

D.  David  Lloyd  George  has  declared  that  only  "root  and 

branch"  methods  will  avail  anything  in  dealing  with 
the  liquor  traffic.  . 

III.    All  other  remedies  have  failed, 

A.    They  have  failed  to  reduce  the  consumption  of  alcohol, 
or  in  other  words,  to  accomplish  anything, 

PBOOF 
I.    The  liquor  traffic  is  an  intolerable  burden. 

A    Scientific  research  shows  that  alcohol  is  a  narcotic 
habit-forming  poison. 

1.  Its  use  causes  many  thousand  deaths  a  year. 
[See  Report  of  the  Medico- Actuarial  Mortality  Investigation] 

a.  Excessive  use  soon  results  in  death. 

b.  Moderate  use  shortens  life  materially. 

c.  Much  of  the  fatal  heart  and  liver  trouble  is 

caused  by  the  moderate  use  of  alcohol* 

2.  Its  use  makes  a  person  more  susceptible  to  disease 

and  less  able  to  resist  it 


xii  BRIEF 

3.  At  least  25  per  cent  of  the  insanity   is   due   to 

alcohol. 

4.  It  makes  many  degenerates  among  the  descendants 

of  users. 

B.  Alcohol  lowers  the  standard  of  character  and  public 

morals. 

1.  It  causes  a  large  part  of  all  the  crime. 

2.  It  creates  a  considerable  part  of  the  pauperism 

3.  It  is  one  of  the  leading  causes  of  commercialized 

vice. 

4.  It  is  responsible  for  a  large  part  of  the  divorces 

and  desertions. 

5.  It  causes  most  of  the  child  misery. 

6.  It  corrupts  the  government  and  makes  cowards  of 

men  in  public  life. 

C.  It  is  a  staggering  economic  burden. 

1.  About  two  billion  dollars   a  year   are   spent   for 

alcoholic  liquors  in  the  United  States. 

a.  This  is  about  twice  the  national  debt. 

b.  It  means  that  the  average  family  pays  $100  a 

year  for  alcoholic  liquor. 

2.  The  indirect  cost  is  much  greater  than  this. 

a.  Alcohol  makes  labor  inefficient. 

b.  It  causes  many  industrial  accidents. 

c.  The  cost  to  the  community  through  public  care 

and  attention  to  crime,  poverty,  insanity,  vice, 
degeneracy,  desertion,  ancT  premature  death 
is  incalculable. 
II.    Prohibition  is  the  logical  and  effective  remedy. 

A.    It  has  been  remarkably  successful  wherever  given  a 
fair  trial. 

1.  It  has  decreased  the  consumption  of  alcohol  and 

therefore  lessened  its  evils. 

o.  The  per  capita  consumption  in  the  whole 
United  States  is  22.5  gallons,  in  Kansas  less 
than  4  gallons  and  this  mostly  consumed 
near  the  border. 

2.  It  has  reduced  insanity. 

a.  Maine  has   a   smaller  percentage   of    insanity 

than  New  England. 

b.  Kansas  and  North  Dakota  each  have  a  smaller 


BRIEF  xiii 

percentage  of  insanity  than  die  west  north 
central  states. 

3.  It  has  reduced  poverty. 

a.  Maine   has    fewer   paupers   in   almshouses    in 

proportion  to  its  population  than  New  Eng- 
land and  almost  twice  as  great  a  percentage 
of  its  people  own  their  own  homes. 

b.  North  Dakota  and  Kansas  have  a  lower  per- 

centage of  paupers  in  almshouses  than  the 
west  north  central  states  as  a  whole,  and 
more  of  their  people  own  their  own  homes. 

4.  It  has  decreased  degeneracy. 

a.  Maine  has  a  smaller  percentage  of  degeneracy 

than  New  England. 

b.  Both  Kansas  and  North  Dakota  have  a  smaller 

percentage  than  the  west  north  central 
division. 

5.  It  has  reduced  crime. 

a.  Maine  has  fewer  sentenced  prisoners  than  New 

England  per  population. 

b.  North  Dakota  has  a  lower  percentage  than  the 

west  north  Central  states. 

c.  Kansas  has  a  higher  ratio  because  its  laws  are 

more  strictly  enforced. 

d.  Arrests  decreased  33  per  cent  in  Georgia  after 

state-wide  Prohibition  was  adopted. 

6.  It  has  helped  education. 

a.  Maine  has  a  larger  percentage  of  children  of 

school  age  enrolled  in  school  than  New 
England. 

b.  Kansas  and  North  Dakota  have  a  smaller  per- 

centage of  illiteracy  than  the  west  north 
central  division  and  Kansas  has  a  larger  per- 
centage of  its  children  in  school 

7.  The  death  and  divorce  statistics   of  the  United 

States  are  in  such  a  condition  that  any  fair 
comparison  of  diem  is  impossible.  The  same  is 
true  as  regards  statistics  of  money  in  savings 
banks. 

B.    It  is  no  argument  against  Prohibition  that  it  has  not 
prevented  all  drinking. 


xiv  BRIEF 

1.  It  is  as  well  enforced  as  the  average  law. 

2.  Laws  against  murder  and  burglary  don't  absolutely 

prevent  these  crimes. 

a.  In  July,  1912,  there  was  an  average  of  one 
murder  a  day  in  New  York  City.  Does  that 
prove  that  the  law  against  murder  in  the 
metropolis  should  be  repealed? 

C.  A  prohibitive  law  will  work  better  in  the  second  gen- 

eration. 

i.  The  children  born  in  a  Prohibition  state  will  see 
so  little  of  liquor  selling  and  intoxication  that 
fewer  of  them  will  have  a  temptation  to  violate 
the  law. 

D.  It  is  no   argument   against   Prohibition   to   say  it   is 

confiscation. 

i.    Under   the   police   power   the    state    governments 
have  always  had  the  right  to  pass  any  law  for 
the  health,  safety,  or  good  morals  of  the  people. 
2.     Other  laws  accomplish  the  same  results. 

a.  Confiscation  of  impure  food. 

b.  Confiscation  of  false  weights  and  measures. 

c.  The    freeing   of   the   slaves   confiscated   many 

times  as  much  property  as  is  now  invested  in 
the  liquor  business. 

d.  Killing  of  diseased  cattle. 

3.  Liquor  stands  on  the  same  plane  as  opium,  cocaine, 

and  other  poisonous  drugs. 
E.    Prohibition  has  not  injured  business. 

1.  The  governors  of  Kansas,  one  after  another,  have 

testified  to  this  fact. 

2.  Commissioner    Blue    in   West   Virginia   says    the 

same  of  his  state, 

III.    All  other  remedies  have  failed. 
A.    Local  option  has  failed. 

1.  It  has  not  decreased  the  consumption  of  liquor. 

2.  It  is*easily  evaded  because  districts  are  so  small 

liquor  can  easily  be  obtained  outside  the  district, 
smuggled  into  it,  or  bought  by  the  mail  order 
system,  thus  taking  drinking  more  into  the 
home.. 

3.  It  corrupts  local  government.    ;..•  - 


BRIEF  xv 

B.  High  license  or  so-called  "model  license"  has  failed. 

1.  It  was  never  intended  to  do  any  real  good,  but 

serves  a  sham  substitute  for  Prohibition. 

2.  It  has  not  decreased  the  consumption  of  alcohol. 

C.  The  dispensary  system  has  failed. 

1.  It  has  not  greatly  decreased  the  consumption  of 

alcohol. 

2.  It  has  taken  drinking  more  into  the  home. 

D.  The  liquor  traffic  refuses  to  obey  the  law — no  matter 

what  it  is.    It  won't  be  regulated  and  therefore  must 
be  abolished. 

1.  On  December   18,   1911,   the  Baptist   Brotherhood 

reported  that  they  had  investigated  1,630  saloons 
in  Cleveland  and  found  1,534  open  and  doing 
business  in  direct  violation  of  the  law  of  Ohio. 

2.  Selling   liquor   to   minors   is  a  common   practice, 

though  unlawful. 

3.  Laws  to  prevent  selling  liquor  to  drunken  persons 

are  almost  universally  violated. 

NEGATIVE 
INTRODUCTION 
I.    Prohibition  means  the  prevention  by  law  of  the  manufao 

f acture  or  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors. 

II.  It  is  not  sufficient  for  the  Affirmative  to  prove  evils  that 
are  due  to  the  use  of  alcoholic  liquors,  but  they  must 
also  justify  the  remedy  they  advocate. 

A.  They  must  show  that  Prohibition  will  remedy  the  evils 

of  intemperance. 

B.  They  must  prove  that  it  will  not  produce  new  evils. 

C.  They  must  show  that  it  is  practicable. 

PROOF 

I.    Prohibition  is  wrong  in  principle. 
-S  A.    It  violates  private  personal  rights. 

1.  What  a  man  may  eat  or  drink  is  not  properly  a. 

matter  of  legislation, 

2.  Many  of  our  best  people  are  accustomed  to  a  mod- 

erate use  of  alcoholic  liquors,  and  to  them  Pro- 
hibition would  be  an  unreasonable  hardship. 

3.  There  are  in  the  United  States  many  people  of 


xvi  BRIEF 

foreign  birth  who  have  always  been  accustomed 
to  use  liquors,  to  whom  Prohibition  would  be  an 
especial  hardship. 

4.  "Better  free  than  sober,"  is  the  opinion  of  many 
of  our  ablest  men,  such  as  Prof.  Hugo  Miinster- 
berg  of  Harvard. 

B.  It  violates  sacred  property  rights. 

1.  Practically  all  Prohibitionists  ridicule  the  idea  of 

compensating  people  now  in  the  liquor  business. 

2.  Almost  $800,000,000  is  now  invested  in  the  manu- 

facture of  liquor,  and  much  more  in  its  sale  and 
in  allied  industries. 

3.  The  federal  and  state  governments,  by  licensing 

and  imposing  special  taxes,  have  recognized  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  liquor  as  a  legitimate 
business. 

4.  To  prohibit  the  further  manufacture  and  sale  of 

liquor  would  be  confiscation  pure  and  simple. 

5.  The   state   and   federal   governments,   because   of 

the  dignity  of  their  relation  to  their  citizens  and 
to  private  property,  ought  not  to  be  guilty  of 
such  an  act. 

6.  Confiscation,  once  accomplished  on  so  enormous  a 

scale,  would  be  an  unwholesome  precedent  apt 
to  be  followed  on  other  occasions. 

7.  There  are  many  men  in  the  business  who  are  now 

past  middle  life  and  know  no  other  business. 
Their  means  of  livelihood  would  be  swept  away 
by  Prohibition,  but  might  be  preserved  under 
some  law  by  which  reform  is  made  gradual. 

C.  State-wide  Prohibition  creates  disrespect  for  law. 

1.  In  most  of  the  cities  in  Prohibition  states  the  law 

is  not  enforced. 

2.  Non-enforcement  and  the  resulting  violation  with 

impunity  of  one  law  leads  to  disrespect  for  all 
law. 

D.  All  good  reforms  are  gradual.     Radical  reforms  are 

seldom  good.    "Hurricane  reform"  is  never  good  in 
its  ultimate  results. 
II.    Prohibition  is  unwise  as  a  policy. 

A.    It  would  mean  an  enormous  loss  in  taxes,  a  complete 
reorganization  of  our  tax  systems. 


BRIEF  xvii 

1.  In      1914      the      federal      government      received 

$245,385,000,  or  one-third  of  its  income,  from 
liquor  taxes. 

2.  State   and   local   governments   also   receive   large 

amounts. 

3.  This  additional  tax  put  on  other  industry  would 

be  a  heavy  burden  and  would  be  apt  to  produce 
industrial  disorder  for  some  years  to  come. 

B.  The  men  and  capital  made  idle  would  create  an  indus- 

trial depression. 

1.  Eighty  thousand   men   would   be   thrown   out   of 

work,  and  in  trying  to  get  work  in  other  indus- 
tries, would  over-supply  the  labor  market  and 
reduce  wages. 

2.  Eight  hundred  million  dollars  of  capital  idle,  much 

of  it  in  bankruptcy  proceedings,  would  make 
worse  the  depression  that  must  follow  Prohi- 
bition generally  adopted. 

3.  Perhaps  as  many  more  men  and  as  much  more 

capital  in  allied  industries  would  be  involved. 

a.  Thousands  of  farmers  who  sell  grain  to  brew- 

eries   and    distilleries    or    grapes    to  wine 

makers,  would  find  no  market  for  their 
produce. 

b.  Railroads    and   express    companies   that  have 

shipped  liquor  would  find  their  business  cur- 
tailed and  profits  reduced.  Many  workmen 
would  be  laid  off  as  a  result. 

c.  Thousands   of   salesmen,    jobbers,   bartenders, 

waiters,  teamsters  would  be  added  to  the 
army  of  unemployed. 

4.  "This  is  not  a  theory  but  a  condition,"  one  that 

certainly  will  develop,  and  what  are  the  Prohi- 
bitionists going  to  do  about  it? 

5.  It  did  not  occur  when  a  sparsely  settled  agricul- 

tural western  or  southern  state  adopted  Prohi- 
bition, but  it  will  happen  when  the  first  large 
and  populous  industrial  state  does  it 

C.  The  foreigners  who  have  been  coming  to  this  country 

a  million  or  more  a  year,  in  time  of  peace,  will 
settle  elsewhere  and  build  up  rival  powers  in  Canada 
and  South  America. 


xviii  BRIEF 

i.  There  are  more  people  today  in  New  York  City 
and  Chicago  than  there  are  in  Canada  or  the 
Argentine  Republic,  and  more  than  one-third  of 
them  are  foreign  born  and  as  many  more  are 
of  foreign  parentage. 

III.    Prohibition,  as  a  national  or  state-wide  measure,  is  imprac- 
ticable. 

A.  It  has  failed  where  tried. 

1.  It  is  unenforceable. 

a.  Large   amounts  of   liquor  are   sold  and  con- 

sumed in  all  Prohibition  states. 

b.  In  all  the  larger  cities  of  the  Prohibition  states 

the  law  is  openly  violated. 

2.  It  has  always  been  clear  that  it  is  impossible  to 

legislate  men  good. 

3.  The  law  can't  regulate  and  change  the  appetites 

and  habits  of  men. 

4.  Prohibition    as   a    state-wide   measure   is    usually 

soon  repealed. 

a.  Of  the  eighteen  that  have  now  adopted  Pro- 

hibition, only  three  have  had  it  for  ten  years. 

b.  Thirty  states  have  adopted  Prohibition  at  one 

time  or  another,  and  fifteen  have  repealed, 
some  of  them  two  or  three  times. 

c.  Rhode  Island  has  adopted  it  three  times  and 

each  time  has  soon  repealed  it. 

B.  With  all  this  amount  of  Prohibition,  the  actual  con- 

sumption  of   liquor   has   steadily   increased,   which 
shows  the  scheme  is  an  absolute  failure. 

C.  Prohibition  leads  to  worse  evils  than  drinking.     Men 

unable  to  obtain  liquor  will  take  to  excesses  in  some 
other  direction. 

1.  The  drug  evil,  the  use  of  morphine,  cocaine,  etc., 

is  found  to  be  increasing  much  faster  in  Pro- 
hibition states  than  in  the  other  states. 

2.  Liquors  with  a  high  percentage  of  alcohol   and 

small  bulk  take  the  place  of  beer  and  are  sold 
in  "blind  tigers"  and  "speak-easies"  by  the 
lowest  class  of  people. 

3.  Patent  medicines  with  a  large  percent  of  alcohol 

are  openly  sold  in  every  Prohibition  state. 


BRIEF  xix 

4.  Most  of  the  liquor  unlawfully  sold  in  Prohibition 
states  is  adulterated  and  poisonous,  and  the 
harm  done  by  its  use  is  much  greater. 

D.  The  liquor  traffic  continues  in  Prohibition  states,  but 

it  is  entirely  unregulated  and  uncontrolled, 
i.     It  is  outside  of  the  protection  of  the  law  and  is 
carried  on  secretly. 

E.  Public  sentiment  will  not  enforce  a  state-wide  Prohi- 

bition law. 

1.  No  law  will  be  obeyed  unless  it  has  back  of  it  the 

force  of  public  opinion. 

2.  Few  of  our  states  are  so  homogeneous  in  popula- 

tion that  all  parts  of  the  state  will  favor  Pro- 
hibition. 

a.  City  ideals  and  rural  ideals  differ  as  regards 

drinking. 

b.  Towns  with  a  large  percentage  of  foreigners 

and  others  mostly  native  will  have  different 
ideals. 

3.  Therefore  local  option  is  preferable  to  state-wide 

Prohibition. 

IV.    There    are    better    methods    of    dealing    with    the    liquor 
problem. 

A.  Local  option. 

i.    This  has  public  opinion  back  of  it. 

B.  The  model  license. 

i.    This  secures  wholesome  regulation  of  the  traffic. 

C.  Gradual  repression. 

1.  Gradual  reduction  of  the  percentage  of  alcohol  in 

liquor  will  slowly  remove  what  cannot  be  anni- 
hilated at  one  stroke. 

2.  Business,  capital,  and  labor  can  adjust  themselves 

to  gradual  changes. 

D.  Education. 

1.  Teach  only  the  truth  about  alcohol  to  children. 

2.  Teach  the  results  of  alcohol  to  adults  also. 

3.  Teach  Temperance  and  self-restraint.    There  will 

always    be    temptations    and   people    should    be 
taught  to  meet  them. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


An  asterisk  (*)  preceding  a  reference  indicates  that  the  entire  article 
or  a  part  of  it  has  been  reprinted  in  this  volume.  A  dagger  (t)  is  used  to 
mark  a  few  of  the  best  of  the  other  references.  Many  of  the  magazine 
articles  and  pamphlets  listed  here,  as  well  as  similar  material  that  may  be 
published  after  this  volume  is  issued,  may  be  secured  at  reasonable  rates 
from  the  Wilson  Package  Library  operated  by  H.  W.  Wilson  Company. 


BRIEFS 

Brookings,  W.  D.,  and  Ringwalt,   R.  C.       Briefs  for  Debate. 

Longmans.  1905. 

pp.  172-5,  Resolved,  That  State  Prohibition  is  preferable  to  high  license 
as  a  method  of  dealing  with  intemperance. 

Robbins,  E.  C.      High  School  Debate  Book.      McClurg.  1912. 

pp.  177-88,  Resolved,  That  as  society  is  constituted  at  present  the  liquor 
saloon  performs  desirable  social  functions. 

Vanderbilt  Observer.  34:44-6.  N.  'n.      G.  W.  Follin. 

Resolved,  that  local  option  is  preferable  to  state-wide  Prohibition  as  a 
means  of  dealing  with  intemperance. 

SPECIAL  MATERIAL 

Many  pamphlets  and  leaflets,  and  some  books,  not  listed  in 
this  Bibliography,  are  printed  by  the  different  organizations  and 
agencies  that  are  endeavoring  to  mold  public  sentiment  on  the 
liquor  question.  This  material  may  be  obtained,  much  of  it  free, 
by  writing  the  following  addresses: 

For  Affirmative  Material 

Anti- Saloon  League  of  America,  Westerville,  O. 

There  are  branch  offices  of  the  league  in  each  state  and  in  many  cities. 
Intercollegiate  Prohibition  Association,  189  West  Madison  Street, 

Chicago,  III 
International  Reform  Bureau,  206  Pennsylvania  Avenue,  S.  E., 

Washington,  D.  C. 
National  Temperance  Society  and  Publication  House,  373  Fourth 

Avenue,  New  York  City. 


xxii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

National  Woman's  Christian  Temperance  Union,   1730  Chicago 

Avenue,  Evanston,  111. 
Prohibition   National   Committee,    106   North   La   Salle    Street, 

Chicago,  111. 
Scientific  Temperance  Federation,  23  Trull  Street,  Boston,  Mass. 

For  Negative  Material 

Iconoclast  Publishing  Co.,  1169  Transportation  Building,  Chi- 
cago, 111. 

Manufacturers'  and  Dealers'  Association  of  America,  36  West 
Randolph  Street,  Chicago,  111. 

Manufacturers'  and  Merchants'  Association  of  New  Jersey,  776 
Broad  Street,  Newark,  N.  J. 

National  Wholesale  Liquor  Dealers'  Association  of  America,  301 
United  Bank  Building,  Cincinnati,  O. 

Ohio  Home  Rule  Association,  22  Garfield  Place,  Cincinnati,  O. 

United  States  Brewers'  Association,  50  Union  Square,  New  York 
City. 

BIBLIOGRAPHIES 

Anti-Saloon  League.  Catalogue  of  Temperance  Posters.  (Price 
list.)  American  Issue  Publishing  Co.,  Westerville,  O. 

Anti- Saloon  League.  Catalogue  of  Temperance  Publications. 
(Price  list.)  American  Issue  Publishing  Co.,  Westerville,  O. 

Askew,  John  B.      Pros  and  Cons.      Dutton.  1912. 

Brookings,  W.  D.,  and  Ringwalt,  R.  C.  Briefs  for  Debate. 
Longmans.  1905. 

California  Libraries,  News  Notes  of.  9:223-6.  Ap.  '14. 

State- wide  Prohibition;    a   select   list   of   references   to   material   in   the 
California  State  Library. 

Edwards,  Richard  H.  Liquor  Problem.  (Studies  in  American 
Social  Conditions,  No.  I.)  Madison,  Wis.  1908. 

French,  Richard  V.  Nineteen  Centuries  of  Drink  in  England, 
pp.  xi-xx.  Longmans.  1884. 

Hart,  Albert  Bushnell.       Manual  of  American  History,  Diplo- 
macy and  Government.      Harvard  University.  1908. 
Section  228,  pp.  367-8,  Regulation  of  the  Liquor  Traffic. 

Harvard  University.  A  Guide  to  Readings  in  Social  Ethics  and 
Allied  Subjects.  1910. 

pp.  122-31,  The  Liquor  Problem,  by  Ray  M.  McConnell. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxiii 

Koren,    John.       Economic    Aspects    of    the    Liquor    Problem, 

PP-  313-22.      Houghton.  1899. 
Matson,  Henry.      References  for  Literary  Workers   pp.  179-81. 

McClurg.  1893. 
Monahan,  M.       Text  Book  of  True  Temperance    pp.  298-308. 

United  States  Brewers'  Association.  1911. 

National  Temperance  Society  and  Publication  House.       Cata- 
logue of  Temperance  Publications.  (Annual.) 
National  Woman's  Christian  Temperance  Union.      Bibliography 

for  the  Study  of  Temperance.  (Pamphlet.) 
National  Woman's  Christian  Temperance  Union.      Temperance 

Books  for  Libraries.  (Leaflets.) 
Prohibition    Year    Book.        (Annual.)     1910,    pp.    211-2;    1911, 

PP.  21-36. 
Reeder,  Charles  W.      Select  List  of  References  on  License  of 

the  Liquor  Traffic  in  the  United  States.      Ohio  State  Uni- 
versity Library.  1912. 
Robbins,    E.     C.       High     School    Debate    Book.    pp.     177-88. 

McClurg.  1912. 
United  States  Brewers'  Association.      Five  Feet  of  Information 

for  Impartial  Students  of  the  Liquor  Problem.      (Pamphlet.) 

1910. 

Vanderbilt  Observer.  34:44-6.  N.  fn. 
Warner,  Harry  S.       Social  Welfare  and  the  Liquor  Problem. 

Intercollegiate  Prohibition  Association.  1913. 

Classified  bibliography  at  the  end  of  each  chapter. 


GENERAL  REFERENCES 

Books  and  Pamphlets 

Allbutt,  Clifford,  and  Rolleston,  Humphrey  D.,  eds.     A  System 

of   Medicine.       Vol.    II,    Part    I,   pp.   901-37.    "Alcoholism." 

Macmillan.  1909. 

Allen,  William  H.      Civics  and  Health.      Ginn.  1909. 
Aschaffenburg,  Gustav.      Crime  and  Its  Repression.      Translated 

by  Adalbert  Albracht.  pp.  69-88.  Little,  Brown.  1913. 
Bagnell,  Robert.      Economic  and  Moral  Aspects  of  the  Liquor 

Business,  and  the  Rights  and  Responsibilities  of  the  State 

in  the  Control  Thereof.      Funk.  1912. 


xxiv  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Barker,  John  M.    Saloon  Problem  and  Social  Reform.    Everett 

Press,  Boston.  1905. 
*Bliss,  W.  D.  P.,  ed.      New  Encyclopedia  of  Social  Reform. 

Funk.  1908. 

Articles  on:  Prohibition,  966-72;  Temperance,  1212;  Liquor  Traffic,  718- 
20;  Intemperance,  636;  Liquor  Consumption,  716-8;  Prohibition  Party, 
972-5;  Local  Option,  725;  Local  Prohibition,  726;  High  License,  572. 

Blythe,  Samuel  G.   Cutting  It  Out.   Forbes  &  Co.  Chicago.  1912. 
Boies,  Henry  M.      Prisoners  and  Paupers.      Putnam.  1893. 

Chap,  ii,  pp. 1 37-69.     Intemperance  as  a  Cause. 

Brown,  William  G.      New  Politics.      Houghton.  1914. 

pp.  145-62.    The  South  and  the  Saloon. 
Bryce,   Alexander.       Laws   of   Life   and  Health.       Lippincott 

1912. 
Burns,  John.     Labor  and  Drink.     Kent  &  Matthews.  London. 

1904. 
Buxton,    Noel,    and    Hoare,    Walter.       Temperance    Reform. 

Fisher  Unwin.  London.  1901. 

pp.    165-210  of  The   Heart   of  the  Empire. 

*California.  Amendments  to  the  Constitution  and  Proposed 
Statutes,  with  Arguments  Respecting  the  Same,  to  Be  Sub- 
mitted to  the  Electors  of  the  State,  pp.  56-7.  1914. 

fCanada.  Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  the  Liquor 
Traffic  in  Canada.  S.  E.  Dawson.  1895. 

Clum,  Franklin  D.  Inebriety,  Its  Causes,  Its  Results,  Its  Rem- 
edy. Lippincott.  1888. 

Committee  of  Fifty.  Physiological  Aspects  of  the  Liquor  Prob- 
lem. Houghton.  1903. 

Committee  of  Fifty.  Liquor  Problem  in  Its  Legislative  Aspects. 
Houghton.  1897. 

Committee  of  Fifty.  Economic  Aspects  of  the  Liquor  Problem. 
Houghton.  1899. 

Committee  of  Fifty.  Substitutes  for  the  Saloon.  Houghton. 
1901. 

^Committee  of  Fifty.  Liquor  Problem :  A  Summary  of  the  In- 
vestigations Conducted  by  the  Committee  of  Fifty,  1893-1903. 
Houghton.  1905. 

Crafts,  Dr.  and  Mrs.  Wilbur  F.,  and  Leitch,  Mary  and  Margaret. 
Intoxicants  and  Opium  in  all  Lands  and  Times.  Interna- 
tional Reform  Bureau.  1900. 

Crooker,  Joseph.       Problems  in  American   Society.       Geo.   H. 
Ellis,  Boston.  1889. 
pp.  117-58.    The  Root  of  the  Temperance  Problem. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Crothers,  T.  D.     Drink  Problem.    Appleton.  1893. 
pp.  277-304  of  Factors  in  American  Civilization. 

Cutten,  George  B.      The  Psychology  of  Alcoholism.      Scribner. 

1909. 
fCyclopaedia  of  Temperance  and  Prohibition.      Funk.  1891. 

A  reference  book  of  facts,  statistics,  and  general  information  on  all 
phases  of  the  drink  question,  the  temperance  movement,  and  the  Prohibition 
agitation. 

Devine,  Edward  T.      Principles  of  Relief.      Macmillan.  1910. 

Chap.  12,  pp.  144-50.     Intemperance. 

Devon,  James.      Criminal  and  the  Community.      Lane.  1912. 
Earle,  Alice  M.      Stage  and  Tavern  Days.      Macmillan.  1905. 
Eaton,  E.  L.      Winning  the  Fight  against  Drink.      Jennings  & 

Graham.  1912. 
fEly,  Richard  T.      Outlines  of  Economics.      Macmillan.  1903. 

Book  2,  chap.  4,  pp.  236-40.     Harmful  Consumption. 

Emerson,  Edward  R.      Beverages,  Past  and  Present.      Putnam. 

1908. 
Fanshawe,  E.  L.      Liquor  Legislation  in  the  United  States  and 

Canada.    CasselL  1892. 

fFernald,  James  C.      Economics  of  Prohibition.      Funk   1890. 
tFisher,   Irving.     The  Attitude   of   the   College   Man   Toward 

Alcohol      May,  1915. 

In  the  Eli  Spring  Book  and  reprinted  as  a  pamphlet. 

Forel,  August  Hygiene  of  Nerves  and  Mind  in  Health  and 
Disease.  Translated  by  Austin  Aikins.  John  Murray,  Lon- 
don. 1907. 

Franklin,  Fabian.    People  and  Problems.     Holt.  1908. 

pp.  1 3 1-6.     Why   Some   Honest   People   Are    not    Prohibitionists. 

French,  Richard  V.      Nineteen  Centuries  of  Drink  in  England. 

Longmans.  1884. 
Gould,  E.  R.  L,    Popular  Control  of  the  Liquor  Traffic.    CasselL 

1895. 

Green,  Sanford  M.  Crime,  Its  Nature,  Causes,  Treatment,  and 
Prevention.  Lippincott  1889. 

Article  2,  chap.  4,  p.  36.     Intemperance  as  a  Cause  of  Crime. 
Article  4,  chap.  2,  pp.  290-300.     The  Prevention  of  Intemperance. 

fGustaf son,  Axel.      Foundation  of  Death :  A  Study  of  the  Drink 

Question.      Funk.  1887. 
fGustafson,   AxeL     World's  Drink  Problem.     Hunt  &  Eaton. 

1895- 

pp.  127-85  of  My  Brother  and  I. 

Henderson,  Charles  R.      Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  De- 


xxvi  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

pendent,   Defective,   and   Delinquent   Classes,   and   to   Their 
Social  Treatment.      Heath.  1901. 

pp.  199-201.     Inebriates, 
pp.  251-2.     Alcoholism. 

Henderson,  Charles  R.  Preventive  Agencies  and  Methods, 
pp.  214-8.  Charities  Publication  Committee.  1910. 

Henderson,  Mary  F.      Aristocracy  of  Health.      Harper.  1906. 

Horsley,  Sir  Victor,  and  Sturge,  Mary  G.  Alcohol  and  the 
Human  Body.  Macmillan.  1908. 

Howell,  William  H.  Text-book  of  Physiology.  W.  B.  Saund- 
ers  Co.  1913. 

Hunt,   Reid.       Studies  in  Experimental  Alcoholism.       Govern- 
ment Printing  Office.  1907. 
Hygienic  Laboratory  Bulletin  33.     Public  Health  and  Marine  Hospital 

Service  of  the  United  States. 

Hutchinson,  Woods.      Handbook  of  Health.      Hough  ton.  1911. 
Jevons,  W.  Stanley.      Methods  of  Social  Reform.      Macmillan. 
1883. 

pp.  253-76.     Experimental  Legislation  in  the  Drink  Traffic. 

Jewett,  Frances  G.    The  Gulick  Hygiene  Series.    Ginn. 

Johnson,  William  E.  Federal  Government  and  the  Liquor 
Traffic.  American  Issue  Publishing  Co.,  Westerville,  O.  1911. 

Kelynack,  Theophilus  N.,  ed.  The  Drink  Problem  in  Its  Medico- 
Sociological  Aspects.  Dutton.  1907. 

Kintzing,  Pearce.  Long  Life  and  How  to  Attain  It.  Funk. 
1908. 

Lalor,  John  J.  Cyclopedia  of  Political  Science,  Political  Econ- 
omy, and  of  the  Political  History  of  the  United  States. 
C:  E.  Merrill.  1890. 

Vol.    3,    pp.    378-80.     Prohibition     in     the     United     States,     Alexander 
Johnston. 

Lincoln,  Abraham.      Complete  Works.      Edited  by  J.  G.  Nicolay 
and  John  Hay.      Lamb  Publishing  Co.,  New  York. 
Vol.    i,    pp.    193-209.     Address    before    the    Springfield    Washingtonian 

Temperance  Society,  February  22,  1842. 

Lombroso,  Cesare.  Crime,  Its  Causes  and  Remedies.  Trans- 
lated by  Henry  P.  Horton.  pp.  88-101 ;  265-74.  Little,  Brown. 
1912. 

Lydston,  G.  Frank.      Diseases  of  Society.      Lippincott.  1908. 

McLaughlin,  A.  C.,  and  Hart,  A.  B.  Cyclopedia  of  American 
Government.  Appleton.  1914. 

Vol.  3,  pp.  76-8.     Prohibition. 

Vol.  2,  pp.  355-60.     Liquor  Legislation. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxvii 

Massachusetts.  Drunkenness  in  Massachusetts:  Conditions  and 
Remedies.  Special  Report  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the 
Foxborough  State  Hospital.  Wright  &  Potter  Printing  Co. 
1910. 

Massachusetts.      Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  of  the  Bureau  of 
the  Statistics  of  Labor.  March,  1896. 
Part  i,  pp.  1-416.     Relation  of  the  Liquor  Traffic  to  Pauperism,  Crime, 

and  Insanity. 

fMedico-Actuarial  Mortality  Investigation.  Compiled  and  Pub- 
lished by  the  Association  of  Life  Insurance  Medical  Direc- 
tors and  the  Actuarial  Society  of  America,  New  York,  1914. 

Vol.  5,  pp.  11-13;  66-93. 

Mitchell,  Kate.  Drink  Question,  Its  Social  and  Medical  Aspects. 
Swan,  Sonnenschein  &  Co.  London. 

National  Information  Bureau.  The  Pros  and  Cons  of  Prohi- 
bition ;  Extracts  from  the  Debate  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. Cincinnati  1915. 

Newton,  John.  Our  National  Drink  Bill.  James  Nisbet  &  Co. 
London.  1909. 

Palmer,  Charles  F.  Inebriety,  Its  Source,  Prevention,  and  Cure. 
Union  Press.  Philadelphia.  1896. 

Partridge,  G.  E.  Studies  in  the  Psychology  of  Intemperance, 
p.  230.  et  seq.  Sturgis  &  Walton  Co.  1912. 

Pereira,  Henry  H.      Intemperance.      Longmans.  1905. 

Phelps,  Edward  B.  The  Supposed  Death  Rates  of  Abstainers 
and  Non-Abstainers  and  Their  Lack  of  Scientific  Value. 
Thrift  Publishing  Co.  New  York.  1913. 

Potter,  Henry  C.  The  Drink  Problem  in  Modern  Life. 
Thomas  Y.  Crowell  &  Co.  1905. 

fRace  Betterment  Foundation.  Proceedings  of  the  First  Na- 
tional Conference  on  Race  Betterment,  Battle  Creek,  Mich. 
January,  1914.  pp.  181-222. 

Reade,  A.  Arthur,  ed.      Study  and  Stimulants.      Lippincott  1883. 

Reid,  G.  Archdall.  Principles  of  Heredity.  Chapman  &  Hall, 
London.  1906. 

Reinsch,  Paul  S.  Readings  on  American  State  Government 
Ginn.  1911. 

Chap.  7,  PP-  338-63. 

Riis,  Jacob  A.      How  the  Other  Half  Lives.      Scribner.  1890. 

Chap.  1 8.     The  Reign  of  Rum. 
Rivers,  W.  H.  R.      The  Influence  and  Other  Drugs  on  Fatigue. 

Edward  Arnold.  London.  1908. 


xxviii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

*Rosenau,  Milton  J.  Preventive  Medicine  and  Hygiene.  Ap- 
pleton.  1913. 

Rowntree,  Joseph,  and  Sherwell,  Arthur.  British  Gothenberg 
Experiments  and  Public  House  Trusts.  Hodder  &  Stough- 
ton,  London.  1901. 

Rowntree,  Joseph,  and  Sherwell,  Arthur.  Taxation  of  the 
Liquor  Trade.  Macmillan.  1906. 

fRowntree,  Joseph,  and  Sherwell,  Arthur.  Temperance  Prob- 
lem and  Social  Reform.  Thomas  Whittaker.  New  York.  1899. 

Samuelson,  James.  History  of  Drink.  Trubner  &  Co.  Lon- 
don. 1878. 

Shadwell,  Arthur.  Drink,  Temperance,  and  Legislation.  Long- 
mans. 1902. 

Snowden,  Philip.  Socialism  and  the  Drink  Question.  Inde- 
pendent Labor  Party.  1908. 

Souttar,  Robinson.  Alcohol,  Its  Place  and  Power  in  Legisla- 
tion. Hodder  &  Stoughtons  London.  1904. 

Starling,  Ernest  H.  Principles  of  Human  Physiology.  Lea  & 
Febiger.  Philadelphia.  1912. 

Stearns,  J.  N.  Temperance  in  all  Nations.  National  Tem- 
perance Society  and  Publication  House.  1893. 

Stelzle,  Charles.  Workingman  and  Social  Problems.  Revell. 
1903. 

Chap.  3,  pp.   37-50.     The  Workingman  and  the  Saloon. 

Stewart,  G.  N.      Manual  of  Physiology,      pp.  618-9.  Wm.  Wood 

&  Co.  New  York.  1914. 
Sullivan,  W.  C.       Alcoholism,  a  Chapter  in   Social  Pathology. 

James  Nisbet  &  Co.   London.  1906. 
Thomann,  Gallus.    Inebriety  and  Crime.     1889. 
United   States   Commissioner   of   Labor.   Fifth    Special    Report. 

The  Gothenberg  System  of  Liquor  Traffic.      E.  R.  L.  Gould. 

1893- 
United  States  Commissioner  of  Labor.  Twelfth  Annual  Report. 

The  Economic  Aspects  of  the  Liquor  Problem.  1898. 
United  States  Senate.  Document  No.  233,  57th  Congress,  First 

Session.  (Vol.  VIII  of  the  Memoirs  of  the  National  Academy 

of     Science.)       An    Experimental     Inquiry     Regarding    the 

Nutritive   Value    of   Alcohol.      W.    O.    Atwater   and   F.    G. 

Benedict. 
*United  States  Senate.  Document  No.  644.  6oth  Congress,  Second 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Session.  January  8,  1909.      Report  of  the  President's  Homes 

Commission. 

Part  2,  Chap.  4,  pp.  230-50. 

fUnited  States  Senate.  Document  No.  48.  6ist  Congress,  First 
Session.  May  17,  '09.  Some  Scientific  Conclusions  Concern- 
ing the  Alcoholic  Problem  and  Its  Practical  Relations  to 
Life.  Papers  Read  at  the  Semi-Annual  Meeting  of  the 
American  Society  for  the  Study  of  Alcohol  and  Other  Drug 
Narcotics,  at  Washington,  D.  C.  March  17-9,  1909. 

United  States  Senate,  Document  No.  146.  6ist  Congress.  First 
Session.  July  29,  '09,  Report  of  the  Judiciary  Committee. 
To  Regulate  Interstate  Commerce  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

United  States  Senate.  Document  No.  958.  fed  Congress.  Third 
Session.  December  3,  '12.  Does  the  Moderate  Use  of  Alco- 
hol Lower  the  Health  and  Efficiency,  and  Should  It  Be  Pro- 
hibited Among  Officers  and  Officials  of  the  Military,  Naval, 
and  Civil  Services.  L.  Mervin  Maus. 

United  States  Senate.  6czd  Congress.  Second  Session.  February 
26  to  March  7,  1912.  Sale  of  Intoxicating  Liquors ;  Hearings 
Before  a  Sub-committee  of  the  Committee  on  the  District  of 
Columbia. 

United  States  Senate,  (%d  Congress,  Second  Session.  April  16 
and  25,  May  I,  1914.  Hearings  before  a  Sub-committee  of  the 
Committee  on  the  Judiciary  on  a  Resolution  Proposing  an 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution  Prohibiting  the  Sale,  Manu- 
facture and  Importation  of  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Warbasse,  James  P.      Medical  Sociology.      Appleton.  1909. 

fWheeler,  E.  J.  Prohibition;  the  Principle,  the  Policy,  and  the 
Party.  Funk.  1880. 

tWilliams,  Henry  S.  Alcohol;  How  It  Affects  the  Individual, 
the  Community,  and  the  Race.  Century.  1909. 

Wilson,  George  R.  Clinical  Studies  in  Vice  and  in  Insanity. 
Macmillan.  1899. 

Wilson,  George  R.  Drunkenness.  Swan,  Sonnenschein  &  Co. 
London.  1893. 

Wing,  Henry  A.  Maine's  War  upon  the  Liquor  Traffic:  A 
Series  of  Historical  Articles.  Portland  Evening  Express. 

Wright,  Carroll  D.  Outline  of  Practical  Sociology.  Longmans. 
1906. 

Chap.  23,  pp.  390-403.     The  Temperance  Question. 


xxx  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Magazine  Articles 

American  Magazine.  71 :  371-7.  Ja.  'n.      Drinking  in  Dry  Places. 

American  Magazine.  74:708-17.    O.   '12.       Fighting  the   Deadly 
Habits.    Samuel  Merwin. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  32:471-615.  N.  '08.      Regula- 
tion of  the  Liquor  Traffic.  (Symposium.) 

Appleton's  Magazine.  12:6-15.  Jl.  '08.      Does  Prohibition  Pay? 
Charles  F.  Aked  and  George  C.  Lawrence. 

Appleton's  Magazine.  12 :  183-90.  Ag.  '08.    Maine  after  57  Years 
of  Prohibition.      Holman  Day. 

Appleton's  Magazine.  12 : 343-50.   S.  '08.       Iowa   Still  Fighting. 
Trumbull  White. 

Arena.  4 :  723.  N.  '91.       The  True  Politics  for  Prohibition  and 
Labor.      Edwin  C.  Piece. 

Arena.  26 :  128-36.  Ag.  '01.    The  Curse  of  Inebriety.    R.  Osgood. 

Arena.  26:136-40.  Ag.  '01.       Magnitude  of  the  Liquor   Traffic. 
Robert  M.  Rabb. 

Arena.  40:325-30.  O.  '08.      The  March  of  Temperance.      Pere 
G.  Wallmo. 

Atlantic  Monthly.  79: 177-89.    F.   '97.       A   Study   of   American 
Liquor  Laws.      Charles  W.  Eliot. 

Atlantic   Monthly.    101 : 627-34.    My.    '08.        Prohibition    in    the 
South.      Frank  Foxcroft. 

Atlantic  Monthly.  115:  735-47.  Je.  '15.      Nation-wide  Prohibition. 
L.  Ames  Brown. 

Bulletin  of  Iowa  State  Institutions.  6:156-88.  Ap.  '04.      Alco- 
holism.     L.  G.  Kinne. 

Century  Magazine.  27 :  792-4.  Mr.  '84.      The  Temperance  Ques- 
tion. (Symposium.) 

Century  Magazine.  33 : 490-2.  Ja.  '87.      How  Prohibition  Grows. 

Century  Magazine.  76 : 462-6.  Jl.  '07.    The  South  and  the  Saloon. 

William  G.  Brown. 
Century   Magazine.   81 : 39-45.    N.    '10.       The  Advance    of    the 

Water  Wagon.      Henry  S.  Williams. 

Charities  and  the  Commons.  19 : 1441-2.  Ja.  25,  '08.      The  On- 
slaught on  the  Saloon. 
Charities  and  the  Commons.  19 : 1452-3.  Ja.    25,  '08.  Local  Option 

and  State  Prohibition  in  the  South.      A.  J.  McKelway. 
Charities  and  the  Commons.  19 : 1604-6.  F.  15,  '08.      Prohibition 
in  North  Dakota.      Charles  A.  Pollock. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxxi 

Charities  and  the  Commons.  20 : 154.  My.  2,  '08.      Prohibition  and 

Southern  Local  Problems.      Francis  H.  McLean. 
Chautauquan.  36 :  355.  Ja.  '03.      Will  Prohibition  Be  Abandoned  ? 
Chautauquan.  37:11.  Ap.  '03.       State  Prohibition  Discarded  by 

Vermont. 
Chautauquan.   50:336-8.   My.   '08.       Prohibition   and   Interstate 

Commerce. 

Collier's.  40:  n.  N.  2,  '07.    The  Spread  of  Temperance. 
Collier's.  40:5.  Ja.  18.  '08.      The  Brewers  of  Ohio.  (Ed.) 
Collier's.  40:7.  F.  8,  '08.      Entente  Cordiale.  (Ed.) 
Collier's.  40:10-3.  F.  29,  '08.      The  City  Saloon  and  Vicious 

Politics.      Will  Irwin. 
Collier's.  41 : 13-5.  Mr.  28,  '08.     South  Carolina's  Substitute  and 

How  She  Fared  Worse.    Will  Irwin. 
Collier's.  41 : 16-7.  Ap.  4,  '08.     South  Carolina's  Substitute  and 

How  She  Fared  Worse.      Will  Irwin. 
Collier's.  41 :  9-11.  My.  9,  '08.       The  Texas  "Clean-Up"  from 

Within.      Will  Irwin. 
Collier's.  41:9-10.   My.   16,  '08.       The  Model  License  League. 

Will  Irwin. 
Collier's.  42:27-8.  Mr.  13,  '09.      Tainted  News  Methods  of  the 

Liquor  Interests.      Will  Irwin. 

Collier's.  49 : 10-1  and  37.  S.  7,  '12.      A  Mystery  Unravelled. 
Collier's.  50:6.  D.  21,  '12.    The  Root  of  Evil.  (Ed.) 
Collier's.  52 : 12.  D.  13,  '13.    John  Barleycorn. 
Commoner.  15 : 1.  Ja.  '15.      National  Prohibition  in  Congress. 

William  J.  Bryan. 
Conference  for  Good  City  Government.  (Pittsburgh.)  N.  '08. 

PP-  49-72.     Discussion. 

pp.  421-43.     The  Liquor  Traffic  and  City  Government,  A.  R.  Hatton. 
Contemporary  Review.  85 : 413-29.  Mr.  '04.    Alcoholic  Beverages. 

and  Longevity.      Thomas  P.  Whittaker. 
Contemporary  Review.  94:510-1.  O.  '08.      Finland's  Prohibitive 

Bill 

Contemporary  Review.  94-511-2.  O.  '08.      Prohibition  and  Inter- 
national Treaties.      E.  J.  Dillon. 
Contemporary  Review.  104:548-56.  O.  '13.    A  Neglected  Phase 

of  Temperance  Reform.      Robert  B.  Batty. 
Contemporary  Review.  107 :  695-704.  Je.  '15.      The  Drink  Trade 

and  State  Purchase.    Thomas  P.  Whittaker. 
Cosmopolitan.  44:492-6.  Ap.   '08.       Prohibition   Sentiment  and 


xxxii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Recent  Legislative  Enactment  in  this  Country.  Arthur  Bris- 
bane. 

Cosmopolitan.  44 :  549-54.  My.  '08.  World-wide  Significance  of 
the  Movement.  Arthur  Brisbane. 

Current  Literature.  44 : 347-50.  Ap.  '08.  The  Prohibition  Tidal 
Wave. 

Current  Opinion.  56:  334-6.  My.  '14.  The  Secretary  of  the  Navy 
Fires  a  Broadside  at  John  Barleycorn. 

Delineator.  75 : 36  and  68.  Ja.  '10.  Gone  Dry.  Minnie  J. 
Reynolds. 

Dublin  Review.  85 : 1-32.  Jl.  '79.  The  Liquor  Traffic,  Should 
It  Be  Prohibited?  Thomas  P.  Whittaker. 

Everybody's  Magazine.  30:654-9.  My.  '14.  Rum — What  the  Or- 
ganized Pros  and  Cons  Would  Do  about  It.  (Symposium.) 

Everybody's  Magazine.  30:  798-805.  Je.  '14.  (Symposium,  letters.) 

Everybody's  Magazine.  31 : 127-30.  Jl.  '14.  Concerning  Rum  and 
Modern  Industrialism.  Gordon  Thayer. 

Everybody's  Magazine.  31 : 131-5.  Jl.  '14.  Facts  in  the  Souls  of 
Men.  George  T.  Ladd. 

Everybody's  Magazine.  31 : 273-5.  Ag.  '14.  Facts  about  Distilled 
Rum. 

Everybody's  Magazine.  31 : 278-80.  Ag.  '14.      The  Woman's  Side. 

*Everybody's  Magazine.  31 : 383-8.  S.  '14.  Rum  and  Remedies. 
Isaac  Fisher. 

Everybody's  Magazine.  32:653.  My.  '15.  The  Full  Dinner-Pail 
Takes  a  Crack  at  the  Flowing  Bowl  in  Lansing,  Mich. 

Forum.  31 : 209-12.  Ap.  'oo.  Prohibition  in  Kansas.  W.  A. 
Peffer. 

fHampton's  Magazine.  27:  341-54.  S.  'n.  The  Battle  for  Booze. 
A.  H.  Gleason. 

Harper's  Monthly.  101 : 850-8.  N.  'oo.  Alcohol  Physiology  and 
Temperance  Reform.  W.  O.  Atwater. 

Harper's  Weekly.  46:511.  Ap.  19,  '02.  Work  of  the  Prohi- 
bitionists. 

Harper's  Weekly.  51 : 1057.  Jl.  20,  '07.  The  Dry  Days  in  the 
South.  Edward  Lissner. 

Harper's  Weekly.  53:29.  Jl.  17,  '09.  The  Truth  about  Pro- 
hibition in  Maine. 

Independent.  36 : 849.  Jl.  3,  '84.    Prohibition  in  Iowa. 

Independent.  63:442-4.  Ag.  22,  '07.  Prohibition  in  Georgia. 
Lovick  P.  Winter. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxxiii 

Independent.  63:564-7.  S.  5,  '07.      The  Growth  of  Prohibition 

and  Local  Option.      J.  Fanning  O'Reilly. 
Independent  66:222.  F.  4,  '09.      The  Prohibition  Movement  in 

New  Zealand. 
Independent.  67: 168-78.  Jl.  22,  '09.      Does  Prohibition  Prohibit? 

(Symposium.) 

Independent.  70:133.  Ja.  19,  'u.      Our  Consumption  of  Intoxi- 
cants.     William  B.  Bailey. 

Independent  71:658-9.  S.  21,  *n.      Prohibition  in  Maine. 
International  4:32-3.  Jl.  'n.      A  Russian  Official  on  American 

Prohibition.      Count  Louis  Skarzynski. 
International  Journal  of  Ethics.  9:350-9.  Ap.  '99.      The  Ethics 

of  Prohibition.      D.-J.  Fraser. 

Literary  Digest.  43: 1081-2.  D.  9,  'il.    The  Rising  Tide  of  Drink. 
Literary  Digest.  44 : 106-7.  Ja.  20,  '12.      To  Dam  the  Interstate 

Flow  of  Drink. 
Literary   Digest.  45:827-8.   N.  9,  '12.       The   Growing  Use   of 

Liquor  and  Tobacco. 

Literary  Digest.  46:60-1.  Ja.  n,  '13.      To  Keep  Dry  States  Dry. 
Literary  Digest.  46:816-7.  Ap.   12,  '13.       Will  the  Webb  Law 

Work? 

Literary    Digest.  47 : 803-4.  N.  I,  '13.      Keeping  Tennessee  Dry. 
Literary  Digest.  47:1176-7.  D.  13,  '13.      A  Temperance  Lesson 

from  Europe. 

Literary  Digest.  48: 196-7.  Ja.  31,  '14.      Bottle  vs.  Book  in  Russia. 
Literary  Digest.  49:513-4.  S.  19,  '14.      Prohibition's  New  Airy. 
Literary  Digest  49 :  579.  S.  26,  '14.      California  on  Prohibition. 
Literary  Digest.   49:618-9.   O.   3,   '14.       Virginia's   Prohibition 

Stride. 

Literary  Digest.  49 : 965.  N.  14,  '14.      Russia's  Vodka-less  Army. 
Literary  Digest  49: 1108.  D.  5,  '14.      Democracy's  Liquor  Prob- 
lem. 

Literary  Digest.  50 : 8,  Ja.  2,  '15.      Prohibition's  Day  in  Congress. 
Literary  Digest  50:  180-1.  Ja.  30,  '15.      Alabama  Dry  Again. 
Literary  Digest  50 : 391-2.  F.  20,  '15.      Knocking  Vodka  Out  of 

Russia. 
Literary  Digest   5o:795-  Ap.    10,   '15.       St   George   and   "the 

Wagon." 

Literary  Digest  50: 870.  Ap.  17,  '15.      War  and  Drink  at  Odds. 
Literary    Digest.    50 : 1084-5.    My.    8,    '15.       France    Banishing 

Absinth.  '  * 


xxxiv  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Literary  Digest.  50 : 1278-9.  My.  29,  '15.  England's  Wavering 
With  Drink. 

*Literary  Digest.  51 : 246.  Ag.  7,  '15.    Liquors  no  Longer  Drugs. 

Living  Age.  284: 119-22.  Ja.  9,  '15.    Drink. 

fMcClure's.  31 : 704-12.  O.  '08.  Alcohol  and  the  Individual. 
Henry  S.  Williams. 

fMcClure's.  32 : 154-61.  D.  '08.  Alcohol  and  the  Community. 
Henry  S.  Williams. 

McClure's.  32:557-66.  Mr.  '09.  Evidence  Against  Alcohol. 
M.  A.  Rosanoff  and  A.  J.  Rosanoff. 

National  Municipal  Review.  3 :  505-16.  Jl.  '14.  Some  Aspects  of 
the  Liquor  Problem.  John  Koren. 

New  England  Magazine.  45 :  81-8.  F.  '12.  The  Prohibition  Crisis 
in  Maine.  Robert  J.  Sprague. 

Nineteenth  Century.  37:709-18.  My.  '95.  An  Object  Lesson  in 
Prohibition.  T.  C.  Down. 

Nineteenth  Century.  67: 1008-25.  Je.  'ib.  Alcohol  and  the  Afri- 
can. Leslie  Probyn. 

Nineteenth  Century.  77 : 401-8.  F.  '15.  Temperance  Reform  in 
Russia.  G.  H.  Frodsham. 

Nineteenth  Century.  77:  1004-14.  My.  '15.  Drink  and  the  War. 
D.  C.  Lathbury. 

North  American  Review.  135 : 525-35.  D.  '82.  Constitutional 
Prohibition  in  Iowa.  Buren  R.  Sherman. 

North  American  Review.  141 : 34-46.  Jl.  '85.  Prohibition  in 
Practice.  Gail  Hamilton: 

North  American  Review.  156:586-93.  My.  '03,  Possible  Refor- 
mation of  the  Drink  Traffic.  W.  S.  Rainsford. 

North  American  Review.  190:628-41.  N.  '09.  Local  Option  and 
-After.  R.  E.  Macnaghten.  • 

Outlook.  67 : 369-72.  F;  9,  '01.  The  Temperance  Question. 
(Symposium.) 

Outlook.  70:115-6.  Ja.  u,  '02.      Two  Temperance  Experiments. 

Outlook.  70:120-4.  Ja.  n,  '02.  Results  of  the  Russian  Liquor 
Reform.  George  Kennan. 

Outlook.  72:678-83.  N.  22,  '02.  Temperance  Reform,  the  Diffi- 
culties with  Current  Methods.  W.  O.  Atwater. 

fOutlook.  72 : 732-7.  N.  29,  '02.  Temperance  Reform ;  Con- 
structive Measures,  a  Platform  and  a  Program.  W.  O. 
Atwater. 

Outlook.  73:868-73.  Ap.  n,  '03.  Prohibition  Pro ;  and  Con. 
(Symposium.) 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Outlook  74:981-4.  Ag.  22,  '03.       How  Prohibition  Works  in 
Kansas.      C.  H.  Matson. 

Outlook.  86:757-8.  Ag.  10,  '07.      Prohibition  in  Georgia.  (Ed.) 

Outlook.  86:947-9.  Ag.  31,  '07.       State  Prohibition  in  Georgia 
and  the  South.      A.  J.  McKelway. 

Outlook.   87:313-4.   O.    12,    '07.       About   Prohibition.       B.   H. 
Bowler. 

Outlook.  87 : 207.  N.  30,  '07.      Prohibition  in  Alabama.  (Ed.) 

Outlook.   88:9-10.   Ja.   4,   '08.       Preparations   for   Prohibition. 
(Ed.) 

Outlook.  88:384-5.  F.  22,  '08.      The  Saloon  on  the  Defensive. 
(Ed.) 

Outlook.  88 : 581-2.  Mr.  14,  '08.      The  Saloon  in  the  South. 

Outlook.  88:615.  Mr.  21,  '08.       State  Prohibition  and  the  Na- 
tional Law.  (Ed.) 

Outlook.    98:771-3.    Ag.    5,    'n.      Does    Prohibition    Prohibit 
L.  J.  Abbott. 

Outlook  99:51.  S.  2,  'u.      Prohibition  in  Maine.      Henry  M. 
Pringle. 

Outlook  99:693.  N.  25,  fu.      Prohibition  in  Maine.  (Ed.) 

Outlook   103:21-3.  Ja.  4,  '13.       Uncle   Sam  and  State  Liquor 
Laws. 

Outlook  105 :  542-3.  N.  8,  '13.      Alcohol  vs.  Publicity. 

Outlook.  106:49-50.  Ja.  3,  '14.      The  Liquor  Traffic  a  National 
Problem. 

Outlook  106 :  566-7.  Mr.  14,  '14.      A  Confession,  Not  a  Charge. 
(Ed.) 

Outlook  107 : 8-9.  My.  2,  '14.      Dry  Goods  in  Dry  Towns. 

Outlook  107:519.  Jl.  4,  '14.      Confiscation  and  Compensation. 

Outlook  107 : 644.  JL  18,  '14.      National  Prohibition  and  a  Con- 
stitutional Amendment 

Outlook.  107 :  686.  JL  25,  '14.      Prohibition  in  Kansas. 

Outlook  107:856-61.  Ag.  8,  '14.      Industry  vs.  Alcohol.      Lewis 
D.  Theiss. 

Outlook  109 : 371-4.  F.  17,  '15.    Lights  and  Shades  of  Russian 
Prohibition.      George  Kennan. 

Reformed  Quarterly  Review.  30 : 140-77.  Ap.  "83.      Prohibitory 
Temperance  Legislation.      J.  Spangler  Kieffer. 

Review  of  Reviews.  23:259-62.  Mr.  '01.      The  Rise  of  Prohi- 
bition. (Ed.) 

Review  of  Reviews.  36:328-35.  S.  '07.      The  Prohibition  Wave 
in  the  South.     John  Comgan. 


xxxvi  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

fReview  of  Reviews.  37 : 468-76.  Ap.  '08.  The  Nation's  Anti- 
Drink  Crusade.  Ferdinand  C.  Iglehart. 

fReview  of  Reviews.  39 : 601-4.  My.  '09.  Another  Year  of  De- 
feat for  the  American  Saloon.  Ferdinand  C.  Iglehart. 

fReview  of  Reviews.  43:215-8.  F.  'n.  Voting  Out  the  Liquor 
Traffic.  Ferdinand  C.  Iglehart. 

fReview  of  Reviews.  48:79-83.  Jl.  '13.  The  Campaign  Against 
the  Saloon.  Ferdinand  C.  Iglehart. 

fReview  of  Reviews.  51 : 215-6.  F.  '15.  The  War  Against  the 
Saloon.  Ferdinand  C.  Iglehart. 

Review  of  Reviews.  51 : 521-5.  My.  '15.  Alcohol,  the  Pressing 
Issue.  (Ed.) 

Review  of  Reviews.  51 : 578.  My.  '15.  Prohibition  in  Canada. 
J.  P.  Gerrie. 

Saturday  Evening  Post.  187:3-5;  29.  F.  13,  '15.  A  Nation 
(Russia)  on  the  Water  Wagon.  Mary  I.  Brush. 

Sunset  Magazine.  33 : 1082-4.  D.  '14.  A  Knockout  Blow  for 
Booze. 

Westminster  Review.  171 : 578-80.  My.  '09.  The  Question  of 
Today. 

World  Today.  9 : 1340-3.  D.  '05.  The  Enforcement  Commission 
of  Maine.  Charles  E.  Owen. 

World  Today.  19: 1164-5.  O.  '10.  Enforced  Sobriety.  Avery  N. 
Beebe. 

World's  Work.  16: 10303-4.  Je.  '08.    Will  Prohibition  Fail  Again? 

World's  Work.  26 : 703-12.  O.  '13.  The  Church  Militant  Against 
the  Saloon.  Frank  P.  Stockbridge. 

World's  Work.  30:433-7.  Ag.  '15.  What  Lloyd  George  Accom- 
plished against  Liquor.  Harry  Jones. 

World's  Work.  30:438-40.  Ag.  '15.  Prohibition  in  Russia. 
Stephen  Graham. 

AFFIRMATIVE  REFERENCES 
Books  and  Pamphlets 

Allen,  Martha  M.  Alcohol— a  Dangerous  and  Unnecessary 
Medicine.  National  Woman's  Christian  Temperance  Union. 

1000. 

fAnti- Saloon  League.  Year  Book.  (Annual.)  American  Issue 
Publishing  Co.,  Westerville,  O. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Armstrong,  Lebbeus.  The  Temperance  Reform.  Fowler  & 
Wells.  1853- 

Arthur,  Timothy  S.     Grappling  with  the  Monster. 

Artman,  Samuel  R.  The  Legalized  Outlaw.  Levey  Bros.  &  Co. 
1908. 

Banks,  Louis  A.  The  Saloonkeepers'  Ledger.  Funk  &  Wag- 
nails.  1895. 

Blair,  Henry  W.  The  Temperance  Movement  Wm.  E. 
Smythe  Co.  1888. 

*Bliss,  W.  D.  P.,  ed.      The  New  Encyclopedia  of  Social  Reform. 
Funk  &  Wagnalls.  1908. 
Article  on  Prohibition,  pp.  966-75,  by  W.  P.  F.  Ferguson. 

Chapman,  Irvin  S.  Particeps  Criminis — The  Story  of  a  Cali- 
fornia Rabbit  Drive.  Revell  1910. 

Chicago,  Vice  Commission  of.  The  Social  Evil  in  Chicago.  1911. 
Chap.  2,  pp.  119-40.  The  Social  Evil  and  the  Saloon. 

Church  of  England  Temperance  Society.  Modern  Medical 
Opinions  of  Alcohol 

Condit,  Filmore.  The  Relation  of  Saloons  to  Insanity.  Ameri- 
can Issue  Publishing  Co. 

Crafts,  Dr.  and  Mrs.  Wilbur  F.  World  Book  of  Temperance. 
International  Reform  Bureau.  1908. 

Crooker,  Joseph  H.       Shall  I  Drink?      Pilgrim  Press.  1914. 

Davis,  Edith  S.  A  Compendium  of  Temperance  Truth.  Na- 
tional Woman's  Christian  Temperance  Union.  1915. 

Dorchester,  Daniel  The  Liquor  Problem  in  All  Ages.  Phillips 
&  Hunt  1884. 

fFehlandt,  August  F.  A  Century  of  Drink  Reform  in  the 
United  States.  Jennings  &  Graham,  Cincinnati  1904. 

Finch,  John  B.  The  People  vs.  the  Liquor  Traffic.  Good 
Templars,  Mauston,  Wis.  1888. 

Gordon,  Ernest  The  Anti-Alcohol  Movement  in  Europe. 
Revell  1913. 

Hammell,  George  M.,  ed.  The  Passing  of  the  Saloon.  Tower 
Press.  1908. 

Hanly,  J.  Frank,  and  Stewart,  Oliver  W.  Speeches  of  the 
Flying  Squadron.  Indianapolis,  1915. 

Hayler,  Guy.  Prohibition  Advance  in  All  Lands.  American 
Issue  Co.  1914. 

Hopkins,  Alphonso  A.  Profit  and  Loss  in  Man.  Funk  & 
Wagnalls.  1909, 


xxxviii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

fHopkins,  Alphonso  A.    Wealth  and  Waste.    Funk  &  Wagnalls. 

1895. 

Lilly,  Lemuel  D.  Bench  vs.  Bar.  American  Issue  Publishing 
Co.  1910. 

Lilly,  Lemuel  D.  The  Saloon  before  the  Courts.  Ohio  Anti- 
Saloon  League,  Columbus. 

*Minnesota,  University  of.  Agricultural  Experiment  Station. 
Bulletin  116.  May,  1909.  pp.  32-5.  The  Relation  of  the  Liquor 
Traffic  to  Agriculture  in  Northeastern  Minnesota.  A.  J. 
McGuire. 

fNational  Prohibition  Committee.  American  Prohibition  Year 
Book.  (Annual.)  Chicago. 

National  Temperance  Society  and  Publication  House.  Annual 
Reports.  New  York  City. 

National  Temperance  Society  and  Publication  House.  The  Pro- 
hibitionists' Text  Book.  New  York.  1883. 

Oswald,  Felix  L.  The  Poison  Problem — of  the  Cause  and  Cure 
of  Intemperance.  Appleton.  1887. 

Pittman,  Robert  C.  Alcohol  and  the  State.  National  Tem- 
perance Society  and  Publication  House.  1883. 

Powell,  Frederick.  Bacchus  Dethroned.  National  Temperance 
Society  and  Publication  House,  New  York.  1873. 

Reid,  William,  ed.  The  Temperance  Cyclopedia.  The  Scot- 
tish Temperance  League,  Glasgow.  1882. 

Richardson,  Benjamin  W.  The  Temperance  Lesson  Book.  Na- 
tional Temperance  Society  and  Publication  House.  1888. 

Schoff,  Hannah  K.  The  Wayward  Child— a  Study  in  the 
Causes  of  Crime.  Bobbs.  1915. 

Chap.   10,  pp.   137-57.     The  Saloon's  Part  in  the  Downfall  of  Youth. 

Scientific  Temperance  Federation.  The  Effect  of  Alcoholic 
Drink  Upon  the  Human  Mind  and  Body.  American  Issue 
Publishing  Co.  1913. 

Stoddard,  Cora  F.  Alcohol's  Ledger  in  Industry.  American 
Issue  Publishing  Co.  1914. 

tStoddard,  Cora  F.  Handbook  of  Modern  Facts  About  Alcohol. 
American  Issue  Publishing  Co.  1914. 

Stoddard,  Cora  F.,  and  Transeau,  E.  L.  Alcohol  in  Every  Day 
Life. 

Stubbs,  W.  R.  Prohibition  in  Kansas.  American  Issue  Pub- 
lishing Co.  1910. 

fWarner,  Harry  S.  Social  Welfare  and  the  Liquor  Problem. 
Intercollegiate  Prohibition  Association,  Chicago.  1909. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxxix 

*  Wisconsin.  Report  and  Recommendations  of  the  Wisconsin 
Legislative  Committee  to  Investigate  the  White  Slave  Traffic 
and  Kindred  Subjects,  pp.  98-103.  Madison.  1914. 

Woolley,  John  G.  Federal  Prohibition  as  Applied  to  the  Terri- 
tory of  Hawaii.  American  Issue  Publishing  Co.  1911. 

Woolley,  John  G.  The  Liquor  Problem  to  Date.  American 
Issue  Publishing  Co.  1913. 

Woolley,  John  G.  The  Wounds  of  a  Friend.  American  Issue 
Publishing  Co. 

Woolley,  John  G.,  and  Johnson,  William  E.  Temperance  Prog- 
ress in  the  Century.  Linscott.  1903. 

Magazine  Articles 

Andover   Review.    1 : 510-6.   My.   '84.       Prohibition  in   Kansas. 

James  G.  Dougherty. 
Andover  Review.  9:23-9.  Ja.  '88.      Prohibition  in  the  Light  of 

New  Issues.      William  J.  Tucker. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  2 : 59-68.  JL  '91.      The  Eco- 
nomic Basis  of  Prohibition.      Simon  N.  Patten. 
Arena.  36 : 168-73.  Ag.  '06.      Shall  Prohibition  Be  Given  a  Fair 

Trial.      Finley  C.  Hendrickson. 
fArena.  38 : 610-9.  D.  '07.    One  Hundred  Years'  Battle  with  the 

Poison  Trust.      Charles  R.  Jones. 
Biblical    World.    43:262-4.    Ap.    '14.       Alcoholic    Liquors    and 

Tobacco. 
Catholic  World.  47 :  539-44.  Jl.  '88.      Liquor  and  Labor.      John 

T.  Smith. 
Catholic  World.  96 :  774-87.  Mr.  '13.      The  Political  Economy  of 

Alcohol.      Frank  O'Hara. 

Century.  90 :  50-6.  My.  '15.    War  and  Drink.    James  D.  Whelpley. 
Charities  and  the  Commons.  20 :  695-6.  S.  19,  '08.    Better  America 

Inspired  or  America  Sober?     (Ed.) 
Charities  and  the  Commons.  20 :  705-8.   S.   19,  '08.     The  Social 

Basis  of  Prohibition.      Simon  N.  Patten. 
Chautauquan.  9 :  525-7.  Je.  '89.      The  Relation  of  Rum  to  Crime. 

A.  B.  Richmond. 
Chautauquan.    51 : 96-107.    Je.    '08.       Economics    of   the    Drink 

Traffic.      George  B.  Waldrott. 
Collier's.  39:7.  Ag.  24,  '07.      Prohibition.   (Ed.) 
Collier's.  42 :  5-6.  Ja.  9,  '09.      Progress  of  Prohibition.  (Ed.) 
Collier's.  50:6.  F.  22,  '13.    The  Root  of  all  Evil.  (Ed.) 


xl  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Collier's.  50 : 14.  Ja.  18,  '13.  Why  the  South  Demands  Prohi- 
bition. 

Collier's.  50 : 14.  F.  I,  '13.    A  Typical  Example.    Mark  Sullivan. 

Collier's.  51:32.  My.  31,  '13.  Some  Aspects  of  Prohibition  in 
the  South.  P.  H.  Whaley,  Jr. 

Collier's.  53:6.  Je.  27,  '14.    A  Town  with  a  Lid.    Walt  Mason. 

Collier's.  53 : 25.  Je.  20,  '14.      Two  States  and  a  Saloon. 

Collier's.  55: 14.  Jl.  3,  '15.      Wealth  and  Booze.  (Ed.) 

Commoner.  15 : 3.  Ja.  '15.  States'  Rights  not  Menaced.  Wil- 
liam J.  Bryan. 

Commoner.  15 : 24-5.  F.  '15.      The  Booze  Business  Is  on  the  Run. 

Commoner.  15 :  30.  Mr.  '15.      Drink  Shortens  Average  Life. 

Commoner.  15 : 2.  Ap.  '15.      The  Drink  Bill  of  the  Nations. 

Commoner.  15 : 24.  Ap.  '15.  The  Way  to  Prohibit  Is  to  Prohibit, 
Russia  Showed. 

Commoner.  15 : 2.  My.  '15.  The  Question  of  Compensation. 
William  J.  Bryan. 

^Commoner.  15:67.  My.  '15.  The  Case  Against  Alcohol.  Wil- 
liam J.  Bryan. 

Commoner.  15 : 20.  My.  '15.      Don't  Be  Bamboozled  by  Booze. 

fCongressional  Record.  46:1867-73.  F.  2,  'n.  The  Great  De- 
stroyer. Richmond  P.  Hobson. 

Congressional  Record.  50 : 5897-8.  N.  13,  '13.  Prohibition. 
Morris  Sheppard. 

Congressional  Record.  51 : 615-8.  D.  10,  '13.  Prohibition  of  the 
Liquor  Traffic.  Morris  Sheppard  and  others. 

*Congressional  Record.  52 : 495-616.  D.  22,  '14.  Prohibition  De- 
bate in  the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  Hobson  Reso- 
lution. 

Contemporary  Review.  51 : 531-46.  Ap.  '87.  Prohibition  in  the 
United  States.  Alex  Gustafson. 

Cosmopolitan.  45 : 83-90.  Je.  '08.  Georgia  Pioneers  in  the  Pro- 
hibition Crusade.  John  T.  Graves. 

Current  Opinion.  58 :  329-30.  Ap.  '15.  Chasing  the  "Rum  Devil" 
off  the  Face  of  the  Earth. 

Forum.  3 : 39-49.  Mr.  '87.  The  Effectiveness  of  Prohibition. 
Neal  Dow. 

Forum.  7:673-82.  Ag.  '89.  Prohibition  and  License.  John  J. 
Ingalls. 

Harper's  Weekly.  51 : 1790-1.  D.  7,  '07.  The  Rising  Tide  of 
Temperance.  Charles  F.  Carter. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xli 

Harper's  Weekly.  53 : 6.  O.  23,  '09.      No  License  in  New  Hamp- 
shire.   J.  H.  Robbins. 
Harper's  Weekly.  55:21.  My.  13,  'n.      Prohibition  in  the  South. 

E.  F.  Noel. 
Harper's    Weekly.    55:6.    My.    20,    'n.      Prohibition    Failures. 

Henry  M.  Hall. 

Harper's  Weekly.  55: 19.  Ag.  5,  'n.      Alcohol  and  the  Degenera- 
tive Diseases :   the  Deadly  Parallel  between  Our  Increasing 

Consumption  of  Intoxicants  and  Heart  and  Kidney  Diseases. 

Norman  E.  Ditman. 
Harper's  Weekly.  55 :  6.  O.  21,  'u.      Liquor  and  Labor  in  Maine. 

G.  Wilfred  Pearce. 
Harper's  Weekly.  55:6.  D.  2,  'n.     More  about  Prohibition  in 

Kansas.      E.  L.  Munson. 
Harper's    Weekly.    56:6.    Ja.    6,    '12.      Prohibition    in    Kansas. 

C.  Farnsworth. 
Hibbert  Journal.  7:439-41.  N.  '08.       Prof.  Flinders  Petrie  on 

"Constraint  Respecting  Liquors."      Joseph  H.  Crooker. 
Independent.  32 :  1-2.  Je.   10,  '80.       The  Maine  Law  in  Maine. 

Neal  Dow. 
Independent.  33 : 4-5.  Mr.  31,  '81.       The   So-called  Degeneracy 

of  Maine.    Henry  S.  Burrage. 
Independent.  34:4.  Ag.  24,  '82.      Prohibition  by  Constitutional 

Amendment.      Neal  Dow. 
Independent.   35:450-1.   Ap.    12,   '83.       The   Liquor    Traffic   in 

Maine.      Neal  Dow. 
Independent.    35 : 871-4.   Jl.    12,    '83.       National    Evils    Require 

National  Remedies.      H.  W.  Blair. 
Independent.  36:321.  Mr.   13,  '84.       Gains  of  the  Temperance 

Reformation.      Daniel  Dorchester. 
Independent.  36 : 325-6.  Mr.  13,  '84.    Constitutional  Prohibition. 

Joseph  Cook. 
Independent.   36:876.   Jl.    10,   '84.       Prohibition.       John  P.   St. 

John. 
Independent.  38: 1132-3.  S.  9,  '86.      Prohibition  in  Cities.      Neal 

Dow. 
Independent.  42 :  769.  Ja.  5,  '90.      Prohibition  in  Maine.      Albert 

W.  Paine. 
Independent.  43 :  1591-2.  O.  29,  '91.     The  Maine  Law  in  Maine. 

Neal  Dow. 


xlii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

•{•Independent.  60:1033-5.  My.  3,  '06.  What  Prohibition  Has 
Done  for  Kansas.  Charles  M.  Sheldon. 

Independent.  63 :  709.  S.  19,  '07.      A  Plea  from  a  Convict  Camp. 

Independent.  64 : 162-3.  Ja.  16,  '08.  Georgia's  Example  to  the 
Nation. 

Independent.  64 : 1304-5.  Je.  4,  '08.  A  National  Fight  for  Pro- 
hibition. 

Independent.  67:202-3.  Jl.  22,  '09.  Does  Prohibition  Prohibit? 
(Ed.) 

"Independent  75 : 25-6.  Jl.  3,  '13.  What  Prohibition  Has  Done 
for  Kansas.  Charles  M.  Sheldon. 

*Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Association.  35 : 65-71.  Jl.  14, 
'oo.  The  Relation  of  Ethyl  Alcohol  to  the  Nutrition  of  the 
Animal  Body.  Winfield  S.  Hall. 

Journal  of  Social  Science.  14 :  71-89.  '81.  Prohibitory  Legisla- 
tion. P.  Emory  Aldrich. 

Ladies'  Home  Journal.  28:21  and  62.  F.  i,  'n.  When  and 
Where  Prohibition  Has  Succeeded.  Samuel  Dickie. 

Ladies'  Home  Journal.  32:20.  Ja.  '15.  What  Happens  when  a 
Town  Goes  Dry.  F.  Crissey. 

Leslie's  Weekly.  110:208-9  and  217.  Mr.  3,  '10.  How  North 
Dakota  Seeks  to  Enforce  Prohibition.  Robert  D.  Heinl. 

Leslie's  Weekly.  115:106-11.  Ag.  I,  '12.  A  Wonderful  Town 
of  Prosperous  Toilers.  Edward  M.  Thierry. 

Literary  Digest.  49:  140-1.  Jl.  25,  '14.  A  Convict  Plea  for  Pro- 
hibition. 

Literary  Digest.  49 :  997-8.  N.  21,  '14.  Prohibition  Winning  the 
West. 

Literary  Digest.  49:  1126.  D.  5,  '14.    Russia's  Delight  in  Sobriety. 

Literary  Digest.  50:536.  Mr.  13,  '15.  Number  of  Dry  States 
Doubled. 

Methodist  Quarterly.  14 : 244-62.  Ap.  '54.  The  Prohibitory 
Liquor  Law. 

Methodist  Review.  45 : 277-80.  Mr.  '85.  The  Prohibition  Move- 
ment. 

Munsey's  Magazine.  50: 14-21.  O.  '13.  $2,700,000,000  a  Year  for 
Liquor  and  Tobacco.  Frank  Fayant. 

Nation.  36 :  168.  F.  22,  '83.     Prohibition  in  Iowa.     Ernest  Hof er. 

Nation.  36 : 272-3.  Mr.  29,  '83.  Prohibition  and  Sophistry. 
Henry  G.  Reynolds. 

Nation.  48:87-8.  Ja.  31,  '89.      An  Experiment  in  Prohibition. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xliii 

National  Educational  Association,  Proceedings,  1911.  pp.  75-82. 

Temperance  and  Society.      David  Starr  Jordan. 
New  Englander  and  Yale  Review.  48: 126-9.  F.  '88.    The  Differ- 
ence  between   Prohibition   and   High   License.     William   L. 

Phelps. 
New  Princeton  Review.  4 : 191-200.  S.  '87.     Some  Plain  Words 

on  Prohibition.    A.  H.  Colquitt. 

North  American  Review.  134:315-25.  Mr.  '82.    Results  of  Pro- 
hibition Legislation.    Neal  Dow. 
North  American  Review.  138 : 50-9.  Ja.  '84.    Alcohol  in  Politics. 

Henry  W.  Blair. 
fNorth  American  Review.  139: 179-85.  Ag.  '84.    Prohibition  and 

Persuasion.    Neal  Dow. 
North    American    Review.     143:382-97.    O.    *86      Prohibition. 

David  R.  Locke. 
fNorth  American  Review.  147 : 121-49.  Ag.  *88.    Prohibitory  Law 

and  Personal  Liberty.    Neal  Dow  and  others. 
North  American  Review.  179:550-4.  O.  '04.    Prohibition,  Why? 

Silas  C.  Swallow. 
fNorth  American  Review.  189:410-5.  Mr.  '09.     Prohibition  and 

Public  Morals.    Henry  Colman. 
Our  Day.  14 : 12-23.  Ja.  '95.     Neal  Dow's  Watchwords  for  the 

Twentieth  Century.    Joseph  Cook. 
Outlook.  67:742-4.  Mr.  30,  foi.     Law  Enforcement  in  Kansas. 

Charles  S.  Gleed. 

Outlook.  71 : 707-8.  JL  12,  '02.    Prohibition  in  Kansas. 
Outlook.  73:864-8.  Ap.  ii,  '03.    Why  Prohibitionists  are  Undis- 

couraged.    Oliver  W.  Stewart. 
Outlook.  73 : 596.  Mr.  7,  '03.     The  Overthrow  of  Prohibition  in 

Vermont.    H.  F.  Forrest 
Outlook.  86:975.  Ag.  31,  '07.    Prohibition  in  Maine.    Lillian  M. 

N.  Stevens. 
Outlook.  88: 102.  Ja.  ii,  '08.    A  Defense  of  Maine.    Mabel  L.  H. 

Weaver. 
Outlook.   88:587-9.   Mr.    14,    '08.     Prohibition   and  the   Negro. 

Booker  T.  Washington. 

Outlook  89 : 231.  My.  30,  '08,    Prohibition  in  Kansas. 
Outlook.  89 : 271-2.  Je.  6,  '08.     State  Prohibition  in  North  Caro- 
lina. 
Outlook  89:  505-6.  Jl.  4,  '08.    Against  the  Saloon. 


xliv  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Outlook.   89:513-21.   Jl.   4,   '08.     The   Temperance   Tidal-wave. 

Samuel  J.  Barrows. 
Outlook.  89:557-64.  Jl.   n,   '08.     The  Temperance   Tidal-wave. 

Samuel  J.  Barrows. 
Outlook.  91 : 397-402.   F.  20,  '09.     American  Sober.     Samuel  J. 

Barrows. 
Outlook.  97:333-4.  F.  n,  '11.    The  Conditions  in  Maine.    Lillian 

M.  N.  Stevens. 
Outlook.  98:  799.  Ag.  5,  'n.    Prohibition  in  Maine.    B.  C.  Went- 

worth. 

Outlook.  99:115-20.  S.  16,  '12.     The  Argument  for  Prohibition. 
Outlook,  107:529-30.  Jl.  4,  '14.     Partner  or  Parasite.     D.  Clar- 
ence Gibboney. 
Outlook.  108:875-8  and  87-8.  D.  16,  '14.    Prohibition  in  Russia. 

George  Kennan. 

Outlook.  109:  954-5.  Ap.  28,  '15.    Prohibition  in  Alabama. 
Outlook.  110:505-8  and  517.  Je.  30,  '15.     Is  Moderate  Drinking 

Justified?     The  Answer  of  Life  Insurance.     Samuel  Wilson. 
Pearson's  Magazine.  15 :  75-81.  Ja.  '06.    The  National  Ravages  of 

Alcohol.     Rene  Bache. 
Popular  Science  Monthly.  45  :  225-34.  Je.  '94-    Should  Prohibitory 

Laws  Be  Abolished?     T.  D.  Crothers. 
Review  of  Reviews.  37 : 479-80.  Ap.  '08.      The  Moral  Dignity  of 

Prohibition  in  the  South. 

Review  of  Reviews.  38:91-2.  Jl.  '08.      Does  Prohibition  Pay? 
Review  of  Reviews.  38 :  300-3.  S.  '08.      Prohibitionists  and  Their 

Cause.      Samuel  Dickie. 
fReview   of   Reviews.   50:212-6.   Ag.    '14.       Europe's    Reaction 

against  Alcoholism. 
Review  of  Reviews.  51 : 96-7.  Ja.  '15.     How  Russia  Has  Gone 

Dry? 
Reformed  Quarterly  Review.  32 :  507-24.  O.  '85.     Non-Political 

Prohibition.      Hiram  King. 
fSaturday  Evening  Post.    187:3-5.  Jl.    n,    '14.       How   Kansas 

Boarded  the  Water  Wagon.      William  Allen  White. 
tSaturday   Evening   Post.    187:25-7.    N.    14,    '14.       Mr.   White 

Comes  Back.      William  Allen  White. 
Saturday  Evening  Post.  188:  14-5;  41-2.  S.  4,  '15.    Moisture — A 

Trace.     Samuel  G.  Blythe. 
Spectator.   1 14 : 464-5.   Ap.  3,  '15.       Why  Do  the   Government 

Hesitate? 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xlv 

Spectator.  114:496-7.  Ap.  10,  '15.    The  Great  Opportunity. 
Sunset.  33:690-2.  O.  '14.     State- Wide  Prohibition  in  California. 

S.  W.  OdelL 

Survey.  22 :  7-8.  Ap.  3,  '09.      Prohibition  in  Massachusetts. 
Survey.  30:448-9.  Jl.  5,  '13.      For  Thinkers,  Not  Drinkers. 
Survey.  33:327-8.  D.  26,  '14.      Eye-witness  of  Russia's  Prohi- 
bition. 
Survey.  34:3-4.  Ap.  3,  '15.       The  English  Press  on  War  and 

Alcohol. 
Technical  World.  21:8-12.  Mr.   '14.       Strong  Drink.       Elbert 

Hubbard. 
tTechnical  World.  22:648-55  and  782.  Ja.  '15.       The  Worker 

Who  Drinks  Must  Go.      Gene  and  Willard  Price. 
Universalist  Quarterly.  43 : 218-25.  Ap.  '86.      Prohibition  and  the 

Constitution.      S.  P.  Smith. 
West  Virginia  Medical  Journal  7:260-4.  F.  '13.     Alcohol  and 

Heredity.    C.  C.  Wholey. 
World  Today.  15 : 1257-^0.  D.  '08.       The  Modern  Temperance 

Movement      James  K.  Shields. 
fWorld   Today.    18 : 167-70.   F.   '10.       Prohibition  in   Alabama. 

Robert  G.  Hidden. 
World's  Work.  30:197-204.  Je.  '15.      A  Saloonless  Nation  by 

1920.      John  S.  Gregory. 
World's  Work.  30:205-12.  Je.  fi£      A  Teetotal  War.      James 

Middleton. 

The  following  papers  are  devoted  very  largely  to  die  support 
of  Prohibition  or  Temperance.  In  most  cases  their  files  will  be 
found  to  contain  much  information  of  value  to  debaters: 

American  Issue.  (Weekly.)    Anti-Saloon  League,  Westerville,  O. 

American  Patriot  (Monthly.)  Anti- Saloon  League,  Wester- 
ville, O. 

California  Voice.  (Weekly.)  Corner  Second  and  Spring 
Streets,  Los  Angeles,  Cal. 

Catholic  Temperance  Advocate.  (Monthly.)  Catholic  Total 
Abstinence  Union  of  America,  804  Wabash  Avenue,  Chicago, 
IIL 

Golden  Age.  (Weekly.)  224  Brown-Randolph  Building,  Atlanta, 
Ga. 

Illinois  Banner.  (Weekly.)  32  South  Vermiflion  Street,  Dan- 
ville, IE 


xlvi  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Index.  (Monthly.)      Williamsport,  Pa. 

Intercollegiate  Statesman.  (Monthly.)  Intercollegiate  Prohi- 
bition Association,  189  West  Madison  Street,  Chicago,  111. 

National  Advocate.  (Monthly.)  The  National  Temperance  So- 
ciety, 373  Fourth  Avenue,  New  York  City. 

National  Daily.  (Daily.)  The  Anti- Saloon  League,  Wester- 
ville,  O. 

New  Republic.  (Weekly.)  The  Anti-Saloon  League,  Wester- 
ville,  O. 

Pacific  Patriot.  (Monthly.)  414  Behnke- Walker  Building,  Port- 
land, Ore. 

Scientific  Temperance  Journal.  (Monthly.)  Scientific  Temper- 
ance Federation,  23  Trull  Street,  Boston,  Mass. 

Temperance  Educational  Quarterly.  (Quarterly.)  National 
Women's  Christian  Temperance  Union,  Hartford,  Wis. 

Union  Signal.  (Weekly.)  National  Women's  Christian  Tem- 
perance Union,  Evanston,  111. 

Vindicator.   (Weekly.)     1252  Liberty  Street,  Franklin,  Pa. 

The  Vindicator  is  perhaps  the  best  of  these  for  the  debater. 

Water  Lily.  (Monthly.)  The  National  Temperance  Society, 
373  Fourth  Avenue,  New  York  City. 

Wheeling  Advance.  (Weekly.)      3021  Union  Street,  Bellaire,  O. 

Youth's  Temperance  Banner.  (Monthly.)  National  Temper- 
ance Society,  373  Fourth  Avenue,  New  York  City. 

A  number  of  other  papers  advocating  Prohibition  are  named 
on  page  8  of  the  1915  Prohibition  Year  Book. 


NEGATIVE  REFERENCES  . 

Books  and  Pamphlets 

Benton,  John  C.  The  Legal  Aspect  of  Prohibition.  Geo.  A. 
Pierce  Co.  1909. 

Davis,  Cyrus  W.,  and  Cabell,  Royal  E.  The  Two  Banner  Pro- 
hibition States.  National  Home  Rule  Association.  Cincinnati. 

Day,  Holman.      The  Ramrodders.      Harper.  1910. 

Debar,  Joseph,  ed.  Prohibition;  Its  Relation  to  Temperance, 
Good  Morals,  and  Sound  Government.  Cincinnati.  1910. 

Freeman,  James  E.  If  Not  the  Saloon,  What?  Baker  & 
Taylor  Co.  1903. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xlvii 

Gunn,  Robert  A.  The  Truth  about  Alcohol  Belford,  Clark 
&  Co.  1887. 

Homan,  J.  A.  Prohibition,  the  Enemy  of  Temperance.  The 
Christian  Liberty  Bureau,  Cincinnati.  1910. 

Hillier,  Sydney.  Popular  Drugs,  Their  Use  and  Abuse. 
T.  Werner  Laurie.  London. 

Lewis,  Dio.    Prohibition  a  Failure.    Fowler  &  Wells.  1892. 

McCarthy,  Justin.  Prohibitory  Legislation  in  the  United  States. 
Tinsley  Bros.  1872. 

McKenzie,  Fred  A.  Sober  by  Act  of  Parliament  Swan,  Son- 
nenschein  &  Co.  London.  1896. 

Magruder,  C.  S.  Anti-  Saloon  Campaign  Manual  Reproduced 
and  Answered.  Liberal  Advocate.  1915. 

Martin,  Jason.  The  Fallacy  of  Prohibition.  Iconoclast  Pub- 
lishing Co. 

*Massachusetts,  Report  of  the  Commission  to  Investigate  Drunk- 
enness in.  Wright  &  Potter  Printing  Co.  1914. 

Merchants'  and  Manufacturers'  Association  of  New  Jersey.  A 
Cabinet  of  Facts  and  Figures. 

fMonahan,  M.,  ed.  A  Text  Book  of  True  Temperance.  United 
States  Brewers'  Association.  1911. 

*Munsterberg,  Hugo.    American  Problems.    Moffat,  Yard.  1910. 

Chap.  4,  pp.  69-100.     Prohibition  and  Temperance. 

National   Wholesale   Liquor   Dealers'   Association  of   America. 

The  Anti-Prohibition  Manual      Cincinnati.  1915. 
Nordhoff,  Charles.      Politics  for  Young  Americans.      American 

Book  Co.  1875. 

Chap.  31,  pp.  110-3.     Of  Prohibitory  Laws,  So-Called. 

Ohio   Home   Rule  Association.       Home   Rule  or   Prohibition. 

Cincinnati.  1914. 
*6hio   Home   Rule   Association-     Ohio   Home   Rule   Almanac. 

Cincinnati.  1915. 

Paget,  James,  ed.      The  Alcohol  Question.      Strahan  &  Co. 
Park,  Robert.    The  Case  for  Alcohol— or  the  Action  of  Alcohol 

on  Body  and  Soul.      Rebman.  1909. 

Philadelphia  Lager  Beer  Brewers'  Association.      Facts  vs.  Fal- 
lacies.     Bloomingdale-Weiler  Advertising  Agency.  1915. 
Reid,  G.  Archdall      Alcoholism,  a  Study  in  Heredity;      Wm. 

Wood  &  Co.  1902. 
Roberts,  John  E.      The  Perils  of  Reform.      Manufacturers'  and 

Dealers'  Association  of  America. 


xlviii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Starke,  J.      Alcohol — the  Sanction  for  Its  Use.      Putnam.  1907. 

*Taft,  Wm.  H.  Four  Aspects  of  Civic  Duty.  pp.  46-8.  Scrib- 
ner.  1908. 

Thomann,  Gallus.  Real  and  Imaginary  Effects  of  Intemper- 
ance. United  States  Brewers'  Association.  1884. 

United  States  Brewers'  Association.  Alcoholic  Patent  Medicines 
and  Extracts.  New  York.  1915. 

fUnited  States  Brewers'  Association.  Year  Book  (Annual.) 
50  Union  Square,  New  York  City. 

Wasson,  E.  A.  Religion  and  Drink.  Burr  Printing  House. 
1914. 

Weeden,  William  B.  The  Morality  of  Prohibitory  Liquor  Laws. 
Roberts  Bros.  1875. 

^Williams,  Edward  H.  The  Question  of  Alcohol.  The  Good- 
hue  Co.  1914. 

Ziegler,  G.  A.,  Rommell,  W.  E.,  and  Herz,  George.  Prohi- 
bition and  Anti-Prohibition.  Broadway  Publishing  Co.  1911. 

Magazine  Articles 

American  Federationist.  22:347-51.  My.  '15.  The  Real  Cause 
of  Industrial  Accidents.  Gustavus  Myers. 

Andover  Review.  9 :  18-23.  Ja.  '88.  The  Mistake  of  Prohibition. 
S.  B.  Pettengill. 

Appleton's  Magazine.  13 : 180-8.  F.  '09.  Maine  Faces  Bitter 
Facts.  Holman  Day. 

Appleton's  Magazine.  13:311-7.  Mr.  '09.  Christianity  and  Tem- 
perance. Charles  F.  Aked. 

Arena.  39:315-8.  Mr.  '08.  Sixty  Years'  Futile  Battle  of  Legisla- 
tion with  Drink.  Philip  Rappaport. 

Arena.  40 : 77-9.  Jl.  '08.  Prohibition  in  Maine  and  Savings 
Banks  in  Ohio.  L.  B.  Hillis. 

Atlantic  Monthly.  95 : 302-8.  Mr..  '05.  The  Drift  away  from 
Prohibition.  Frank  Foxcroft. 

fCentury  Magazine.  27 : 316-8.  D.  '83.  Hurricane  Reform. 
Washington  Gladden. 

tCentury  Magazine.  28 :  149-50.  My.  '84.  Comment.  Washing- 
ton Gladden. 

Charities  and  the  Commons.  19 :  1603-4.  F.  15.  '08.  The  Brew- 
ers' Position.  Hugh  F.  Fox. 

Charities  and  the  Commons.  20 :  682.  S.  5,'  '08.  Give  the  Brew- 
ers a  Chance.  L.  Henry  Schwab. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xlix 

Collier's.  48:20.  O.  7,  'n.  Kitchen  Bars,  the  Secret  of  the 
Confusion  in  Maine.  Arthur  H.  Gleason. 

Collier's.  51 : 29.  Ap.  19,  13.  Temperance  and  Prohibition. 
T.  M.  Gilmore. 

^Congressional  Record.  42 : 5380-1.  Ap.  28,  '08.  The  Personal 
Rights  and  Liberties  of  Man.  Herman  P.  Goebel. 

^Congressional  Record.  52 :  495-616.  D.  22,  '14.  Prohibition  De- 
bate in  the  House  on  the  Hobson  Resolution. 

Cosmopolitan.  44 :  558-60.  My.  '08.  Temperance  or  Prohibition. 
Gustave  Pabst 

Current  Literature.  44 : 304.  Mr.  '08.  A  Christian  Minister's 
Defense  of  Strong  Drink. 

Everybody's  Magazine.  31 :  135-7.  JL  *I4-  Common-sense  Tem- 
perance. James  Samuel. 

Everybody's  Magazine.  31 : 275-8.  Ag.  '14.  Prohibition  from  the 
Medical  Viewpoint.  E.  H.  Williams. 

Fortnightly  Review.  16: 166-79.  Ag.  '71.  Prohibitory  Legislation 
in  the  United  States.  Justin  McCarthy. 

Forum.  2 : 232-42.  N.  '86.  Prohibition,  So-called.  Leonard  W. 
Bacon. 

Forum.  2 : 401-10.  D.  86.  The  Alternative  of  Prohibition. 
Leonard  W.  Bacon. 

Forum.  3:152-60.  Mr.  '87.  Do  We  Need  Prohibition?  John 
Snyder. 

Harper's  Weekly.  51 : 4.  S.  23,  '11.    Maine  and  Prohibition.  (Ed.) 

Harper's  Weekly.  52:9.  F.  i,  '08.  The  Liquor  Men's  License 
Law.  Stanley  Bronner. 

Harper's  Weekly.  52:6-7.  Ap.  25,  '08.  The  Fight  Against 
Alcohol. 

Harper's  Weekly.  53 : 14-5.  F.  6,  '09.  Maine's  Mockery  of  Pro- 
hibition. Holman  Day. 

Harper's  Weekly.  53 :  24-5.  F.  27,  '09.  Maine's  Mockery  of  Pro- 
hibition. Holman  Day. 

Harper's  Weekly.  53:27.  My.  29,  '09.  Beating  Prohibition  on 
the  Mississippi.  Raymond  S.  Spears. 

Harper's  Weekly.  53 : 13.  Je.  19,  '09.  Liquor  and  Common 
Sense  in  Iowa.  William  R.  Boyd. 

Harper's  Weekly. :  53 : 15.  JL  10,  '09.  Near  Prohibition  in  the 
South.  R.  W.  Simpson,  Jr. 

Harper's  Weekly.  53:16-7.  S.  18,  '09.  New  Hampshire's  No 
License  Farce.  Edward  J.  Gallagher. 


1  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Harper's   Weekly.    54:9-10.    D.   24,   '10.     A    Few   Facts    about 

Kansas.      I.  T.  Martin. 

Harper's  Weekly.  55:12-3.  Mr.   18,  'n.     The  Failure  of  Pro- 
hibition in  the  South.      R.  E.  Pritchard. 
Harper's  Weekly.  55:9-10.  O.  7,  'u.       The  Muddle  in  Maine. 

Holman  Day. 
Hibbert  Journal.    6 :  782-95.  Jl.   '08.       The   Right  to   Constrain 

Men  for  Their  Own  Good.      W.  M.  Flinders  Petrie. 
Independent.  32 :  5.  My.  6,  '80.      Perplexing  News  from  Maine. 
Independent.  32 :  I.  My.  27,  '80.      Joke  no  Joke.      Leonard  W. 

Bacon. 
Independent.  53 : 430-2.  F.  21,  '01.      Kansas  Prohibition  Status. 

Charles  M.  Harger. 
•{•Independent.   81 : 6.  Ja.   4,   '15.       The   Control  of   the   Liquor 

Traffic.   (Ed.) 
Journal  of  Social  Science.  14:  118-28  (1881).      Considerations  in 

Favor  of  License  Laws  for  Restraining  the  Liquor  Traffic. 

Leonard  W.  Bacon. 
fLadies'  Home  Journal.  28:21;  41.  Ja.  I,  'n.     Why  Prohibition 

Has    not   Remedied   the   Liquor    Evil    and    Cannot   Do    so. 

Henry  S.  Williams. 
Lancet-Clinic.    112:421-7.    O.    17,    '14.       Facts    vs.    Fanaticism. 

Ralph  Reed. 
Leslie's  Weekly.  109:632  and  7.  D.  23,  '09.     Alabama's  Fierce 

Struggle  over  Prohibition.     S.  Mays  Ball. 
Leslie's  Weekly.  109 :  652.  D.  30,  '09.      Alabama's  Fierce  Struggle 

Over  Prohibition.       S.  Mays  Ball. 
Leslie's  Weekly,  no:  134.  F.  10,  '10.      Georgia's  Attempt  to  Be 

Good  and  Dry.     S.  Mays  Ball. 
Leslie's  Weekly,  no:  156  and  68.  F.  17,  '10.  Georgia's  Attempt  to 

Be  Good  and  Dry.      S.  Mays  Ball. 
Leslie's  Weekly,  no:  540-1  and  51.  Je.  2,  '10.  The  Confessions  of 

a  Brewer.      Percy  Andrae. 
Leslie's  Weekly.  119:466  and  81.  N.  12,  '14.    Facts  about  Kansas 

on  the  Water  Wagon.      Royal  E.  Cabell. 
Leslie's  Weekly.  121 : 271.  S.  9,  '15.    Are  We  Intemperate.    Joel 

Shomaker. 
Literary  Digest.  50:675-6.  Mr.  27,  '15.       Liquor  Views  of  the 

Prohibition  Wave. 

Literary    Digest.    51:67-8.    Jl.    10,    '15.      Difficulties    with    Pro- 
hibition in  Russia. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  H 

*McClure's.  31:438-44.  Ag.  '08.  Prohibition  and  Social  Psy- 
chology. Hugo  Munsterberg. 

McClure's.  32:419-26.  F.  '09.  The  Scientific  Solution  of  the 
Liquor  Problem.  Henry  S.  Williams. 

tMacmillan's  Magazine.  59:338-49.  Mr.  '89.  Prohibition  in 
Canada  and  the  United  States.  Goldwin  Smith. 

Medical  Record.  85:247-9.  F.  7,  '14,  The  Drug  Menace  in  the 
South.  Dr.  Edward  H.  Williams. 

Municipal  Affairs.  4:399-401.  Je.  'oo.  The  Salon  in  Politics, 
Bolton  Hall. 

Nation.  12:353-5.  My.  25,  '71.  Why  We  Do  not  Believe  in 

Prohibition- 
Nation.  36: 168-9,  F.  22,  '83.  Moral  Suasion.  E.  H.  Finlayson. 

Nation.  42 : 52.  Ja.  21,  '86.    Prohibition  vs.  High  License. 

Nation.  44 :  266.  Mr.  31,  '87.      Taxed  and  Untaxed  Liquor. 

Nation.  46 :  70-1.  Ja.  26,  '88.      Prohibition  and  High  License. 

Nation.  48 : 133-4.  F.  14,  '89.      Another  Prohibition  Experiment. 

Nation.  49:470.  D.  12,  '89.      Law  vs.  Moral  Suasion. 

Nation.  55 : 65-6.  JL  28,  '92.      Prohibition  in  Maine. 

Nation.  62 :  50-1.  Ja.  16,  '96.  Prohibition  in  Maine.  William 
MacDonald. 

Nation.  71 : 224-5.  S.  20,  'oo.    The  Prohibition  Episode  in  Maine. 

Nation.  75 : 395-6.  N.  20,  '02.      Aspects  of  Local  Option. 

Nation.  76:409-10.  My.  21,  '03.      Abandoning  Prohibition. 

Nation.  85 : 460-1.  N.  21,  '07.      The  War  on  the  Saloon. 

New  Englander  and  Yale  Review.  44 : 706-20.  S.  '85.  Prohibition 
not  Desirable.  Fisk  P.  Brewer. 

New  Englander  and  Yale  Review.  51 : 401-10.  D.  *89.  The  Moral 
of  the  Prohibitionists's  Defeat.  Leonard  W.  Bacon. 

New  Princeton  Review.  4:31-43.  JL  *87.  The  Theory  of  Pro- 
hibition. Sanford  H.  Cobb. 

Nineteenth  Century.  28:23-38.  Jl.  '90.  Compensation  or  Con- 
fiscation. T.  W.  Russell 

Nineteenth  Century.  65:994-1004.  Je.  '09.  The  Future  of  the 
Public  House.  Edwyn  Barclay. 

Nineteenth  Century.  71:730-40.  Ap.  '12.  The  True  Lines  of 
Temperance  Reform.  F.  E.  Smith 

Nineteenth  Century.  73 :  1294-1306.  Je.  '13.  Sober  by  Act  of 
Parliament.  Edith  Sellers. 

North  American  Review.  139 : 185-98.  Ag.  '84.  Prohibition  and 
Persuasion.  Dio  Lewis. 


Hi  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

North  American  Review.  188 :  910-7.  D.  '08.  Some  Salient  Points 
of  Prohibition  in  the  Light  of  Christian  Ethics.  P.  Gavan 
Duffy. 

North  American  Review.  201 : 463-5.  Mr.  '15.  Does  Prohibition 
Prohibit?  J.  M.  Gilmore. 

Overland.  52 : 557-61.  D.  '08.  In  the  Wake  of  the  Fanatic. 
Francis  H.  Robinson. 

Overland.  53 : 39-42.  Ja.  '09.  The  Liquor  Problem.  T.  M.  Gil- 
more. 

Overland.  53 : 424-8.  My.  '09.  A  Glance  at  the  Liquor  Problem. 
Hartwell  J.  Davis. 

Outlook.  65 :  675-6.  Jl.  21,  'oo.     Sensible  Temperance. 

Outlook.  66:  100-1.  S.  8,  'oo.    Concerning  Temperance. 

Outlook.  73:367.  F.  14,  '03.    Vermont  for  Local  Option.  (Ed.) 

Outlook.  73 : 415.  F.  21,  '03.  Prohibition  and  Law  Enforcement 
in  Maine. 

Outlook.  73 : 699.  Mr.  28,  '03.  New  Hampshire  Abandons  Pro- 
hibition. 

Outlook.  73 :  705-6.  Mr.  28,  '03.  The  Liquor  Interests  and  Home 
Rule. 

fOutlook.  73:857-9.  Ap.  n,  '03.  Prohibition  or  Temperance — 
Which? 

Outlook.  86:943-4.  Ag.  31,  '07.    The  South  and  Liquor  Selling. 

Outlook.  98:  763-5.  Ag.  5,  'n.    State- wide  Prohibition. 

Outlook.  101 : 639-43.  Jl.  20,  '12.  When  Prohibition  Fails  and 
Why.  E.  E.  Miller. 

Outlook.  105 :  786-8.  D.  13,  '13.  The  Liquor  Traffic,  Local  Option 
and  Slavery. 

Outlook.  107:531-2.  Jl.  4,  '14.  Prohibition  without  Compensa- 
tion :  A  Reply.  Fred  G.  Betts. 

Outlook.  108:973.  D.  30,  '14.    Prohibition  and  Congress. 

Pearson's  Magazine.  22 :  143-53.  Ag.  '09.  Prohibition,  the  Ob- 
stacle to  Real  Reform.  William  A.  Wasson. 

Popular  Science  Monthly.  21:785-7.  O.  '82.  The  Utility  of 
Drunkenness.  W.  Mattieu  Williams. 

Popular  Science  Monthly.  25 : 47-9.  My.  '84.  An  Experiment  in 
Prohibition.  Edward  Johnson. 

Popular  Science  Monthly.  26 :  787-96.  Ap.  '85.  Liquor  Legisla- 
tion. Gorham  D.  Williams. 

Popular  Science  Monthly.  44 :  577-93.  Mr.  '94.  Abolish  all  Pro- 
hibitive Liquor  Laws.  Appleton  Morgan. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  liii 

Putnam's  Monthly.  5 : 694-701.  Mr.  '09.  Prohibition  in  Georgia : 
Its  Failure  to  Prevent  Drinking  in  Atlanta  and  Other  Cities. 
S.  Mays  Ball. 

Saturday  Evening  Post  187 : 24.  O.  24,  '14.  Temperance  in  Vir- 
ginia. (Ed.) 

Saturday  Evening  Post.  187:33.  O.  24,  '14.  A  Reply  to  Mr. 
White.  Hugh  F.  Fox. 

Sunset.  33:688-90.  O.  '14.  Immoral  Legislation.  William  J. 
Button. 

Twentieth  Century  Magazine.  3:401-5.  F.  'n.  Legal  Righteous- 
ness and  Christian  Ethics.  P.  Gavan  Duffy. 

Westminster  Review.  147:408-28.  Ap.  '97.  The  Drink  Evil  and 
Its  Cure.  A.  G.  Herzfeld. 

Westminster  Review.  161:524-32.  My.  '04.  Science  and  the 
Drunkard.  W.  H.  Champness. 

The  files  of  the  following  papers  will  be  found  to  contain 
many  articles  opposing  Prohibition  that  will  be  of  value  to 
debaters : 

American  Brewers'  Review.  327  South  LaSalle  Street,  Chicago, 
IlL 

American  Wine  Press  and  Mineral  Wrater  News.  (Monthly.) 
302  Broadway,  New  York  City. 

Beacon.  (Weekly.)     117  North  Main  Street,  East  St.  Louis,  IlL 

Bonfort's  Wine  and  Spirit  Circular.  (Semi-monthly.)  78  Broad 
Street,  New  York  City. 

Braun's  Iconoclast.  (Monthly.)  508  Hearst  Building,  Chicago, 
IlL 

Brewer's  JournaL  (Monthly.)    I  Hudson  Street,  New  York  City. 

Champion  of  Fair  Play.  (Weekly.)  920  Schiller  Building,  Chi- 
cago, 111. 

Communications  of  the  Master  Brewers'  Association  of  the 
United  States.  (Monthly.)  St  Louis,  Mo. 

Current  Thought  (Monthly.)  Manufacturers'  and  Dealers'  As- 
sociation of  America,  36  West  Randolph  Street,  Chicago,  IlL 

Liberal  Advocate.  (Weekly.)  Ohio  Liquor  League,  115  S.  Wall 
Street,  Columbus,  O. 

Mida's  Criterion.  (Semi-monthly.)  536  South  Clark  Street,  Chi- 
cago, IlL 

National  Bottlers'  Gazette.  (Monthly.)  99  Nassau  Street,  New 
York  City. 


liv  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

National  Liquor  Dealers'  Journal.  (Weekly.)  220  Third  Avenue, 
Pittsburgh,  Pa. 

North  American  Wine  and  Spirit  Journal.  (Monthly.)  101  Tre- 
mont  Street,  Boston,  Mass. 

Our  Side.  (Weekly.)     200  Third  Street  N,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Pacific  Wine,  Brewing,  and  Spirit  Review.  (Monthly.)  422  Mont- 
gomery Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 

Pure  Products.  (Monthly.)  50  East  Fortieth  Street,  New  York 
City. 

Wholesalers'  and  Retailers'  Review.  (Monthly.)  862  Pacific 
Building,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 

Wine  and  Spirit  Bulletin.  (Monthly.)  39  American  National 
Bank  Building,  Louisville,  Ky. 


SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

PROHIBITION  OF  THE 

LIQUOR  TRAFFIC 


INTRODUCTION 


"The  conflict  between  man  and  alcohol  is  as  old  as  civiliza- 
tion," wrote  Senator  Henry  W.  Blair  in  his  book,  "The  Tem- 
perance Movement,"  published  in  1888.  He  also  tells  us  that 
the  manufacture  and  drinking  of  alcohol  was  forbidden  more 
than  4,000  years  ago  by  the  Emperor  of  China,  and  that  since 
that  time  on  many  different  occasions  and  in  many  different 
lands  laws  have  been  passed  to  restrict  or  to  prohibit  the  use  of 
intoxicants.  The  struggle  to  keep  Bacchus  out  expresses  in 
the  beautiful  figurative  way  of  the  ancient  Greeks  the  idea 
that  at  that  time  Prohibition  was  agitating  the  minds  of  men. 
So  it  is  clear  that  there  is  nothing  new  about  the  struggle 
that  is  now  being  waged  against  the  use  of  alcoholic  liquors 
for  beverages  in  so  many  different  countries. 

Nor  is  there  anything  new  about  Prohibition  as  a  state-wide 
measure.  In  the  United  States  there  have  been  two  great 
Prohibition  movements  that  have  spread  over  the  country  and 
commanded  a  large  measure  of  public  attention,  and  in  saying 
this  we  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  there  has  also  been 
a  small  group  of  very  earnest  enemies  of  the  liquor  traffic 
who  have  waged  incessant  warfare  against  it  for  more  than  a 
century.  The  first  of  these  two  movements  was  about  the 
middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  and  might  be  said  to  have 
begun  with  the  passage  of  a  state- wide  Prohibition  law  in 
Maine  in  1846.  In  most  of  the  northern  and  northeastern 
states  there  was  an  effort  made  to  adopt  a  similar  law,  and 
it  was  successful  in  thirteen  of  them.  In  all  but  a  few  cases 
the  action  was  soon  rescinded  and  public  attention  was  diverted 
from  the  question  by  the  Civil  War. 


flv    , ,  c  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

A]  i»e°KH  V  '!  It3l  A »..o* 

TABLE  i 


STATE-WIDE  PROHIBITION 

Statutory  or 

No.  State                     constitutional  Adopted             Repealed 

1  Maine    Statutory  1846  1856 

2  Illinois    Statutory  1851  1853 

3  Massachusetts   Statutory  1852  1868 

4  Rhode  Island Statutory  1852  1863 

5  Vermont   Statutory        •  1852  1903 

6  Michigan    Statutory  1853  1875 

7  Connecticut   Statutory  1854  1872 

8  Delaware    Statutory  1855  1857 

9  Indiana1    Statutory  1855  1858 

10  Iowa Statutory  1855  1857 

1 1  Nebraska    Statutory  1855  1858 

12  New  Hampshire Statutory  1855  1903 

13  New  York1 Statutory  1855  1856 

i         Maine   Statutory  1858 

14  Kansas    Statutory  1867 

3  Massachusetts   Statutory  1869  1875 

4  Rhode  Island    Statutory  1874  1875 

14  Kansas    Constitutional  1880 , 

10  Iowa1 Constitutional  1882  1883 

i  Maine  Constitutional  1884 

10  Iowa  Statutory  1884  1894 

4  Rhode  Island  Constitutional  1886  1889 

15  South  Dakota Constitutional  1889  1896 

1 6  North  Dakota Constitutional  1889 

17  Georgia  Statutory  1907 

18  Oklahoma Constitutional  1907 

19  Alabama   Statutory  1908  1911 

20  Mississippi   Statutory  1908 

21  Tennessee Statutory  1909 

22  North  Carolina Statutory  1909 

23  West  Virgina   Constitutional  1912 

24  Colorado Constitutional  1914 

25  Virginia    Statutory  1914 

26  Arizona    Constitutional  1914 

27  Oregon   Constitutional  1914 

28  Washington   Statutory  1914 

29  Arkansas    Statutory  1915 

30  Idaho    Statutory  1915 

10         Iowa    Statutory  1915 

21         Alabama   Statutory  1915 

31  South    Carolina    Statutory  1915 

1  Declared  unconstitutional  by  the  courts,                                ^T" 


PROHIBITION  3 

The  second  Prohibition  movement  in  the  United  States 
may  be  said  to  have  begun  with  the  adoption  of  a  state-wide 
law  in  Georgia  in  1907.  It  has  affected  the  South  and  West 
chiefly,  fifteen  states  in  these  sections  of  the  country  having 
adopted  Prohibition  since  Georgia  did,  and  several  more  will 
vote  on  the  question  within  the  next  two  years. 

Table  I,  on  page  2,  shows  the  list  of  states  that  have  actually 
adopted  Prohibition  as  a  state-wide  measure.  In  Wisconsin  in 
1855  and  in  Utah  in  1915  such  a  bill  passed  both  houses  of  the 
legislature,  but  was  vetoed  by  the  governor.  In  most  of  the 
other  states  Prohibition  bills  have  been  considered  in  the  legisla- 
ture, or  submitted  to  the  voters  in  a  referendum.  Thirty-one  of 
the  states  have  actually  adopted  a  state-wide  law  or  amendment 
to  the  constitution,  several  of  them  repealing  it  and  then  adopt- 
ing it  again.  In  nineteen  of  the  states,  or  more  than  one- third 
of  the  total  number,  it  is  now  incorporated  in  the  law,  eight 
of  them  having  written  it  into  their  constitutions. 

In  the  following  states  the  people  are  soon  to  vote  on 
Prohibition  as  a  state-wide  measure: 

Statutory  or 

State  constitutional        Date  of  vote 

Ohio  Constitutional  November    1915 

Vermont    Statutory  March  1916 

Idaho    Constitutional  November    1916 

South  Dakota Constitutional  November    1916 

Montana    Statutory  November    1916 

Iowa1   Constitutional  November    1917 

1  If  ratified  by  the  legislature  in  1917. 

As  a  nation-wide  measure  by  an  amendment  to  the  federal 
constition,  Prohibition  was  first  introduced  in  Congress  by 
Henry  W.  Blair  in  1876,  he  then  being  a  member  of  the  House 
of  Representatives.  On  December  22,  1914,  the  Hobson  reso- 
lution was  debated  and  voted  upon  in  the  House.  While  it 
failed  to  get  the  two-thirds  vote  that  is  necessary  to  pass  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution,  and  failed  to  get  the  votes 
of  a  majority  of  all  members  of  the  House,  it  did  get  the  votes 
of  a  majority  of  those  voting  on  it.  Perhaps  the  most  impor- 
tant thing  about  this  vote  is  the  fact  that  it  showed,  as  William 
J.  Bryan  pointed  out  in  his  Commoner,  that  the  argument 
that  national  Prohibition  would  be  a  violation  of  states'  rights 


4  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

did  not  have  great  weight  with  the  members  of  Congress.    The 
following  list  is  taken  from  the  Commoner  for  January,  1915. 

The  States'  Rights  States 

Analysis  of  vote  passed  in  the  House  on  the  Hobson  resolu- 
tion: 

Not 

Yeas  Nays  voting 

Alabama  4  5  i 

Arkansas    7 

Florida  2  . .  2 

Georgia 8  3  i 

Louisiana   i  6  i 

Mississippi    7  i 

North  Carolina 6  i  3 

South   Carolina    7 

Tennessee 9  . .  i 

Texas    4  12  2 

Virginia    8  2 

63  30  ii 

TABLE  2 
LIQUOR  STATISTICS  FOR  THE  UNITED  STATES  IQOO, 

Distilled  Malt  Vinous 

liquors  liquors  liquors  Total 

Number  of  establishments                  613  1,414  290  2,317 

Persons  engaged 8,328  66,725  2,726  77,779 

Capital  invested $  72,450,000  $671,158,000  $27,908,000  $771,516,000 

Wages  paid  3,074,000  41,206,000  972,000  45,252,000 

Cost  of  materials  used  . .     35,977,ooo  96,596,000  6,626,000  139,199,000 

Value  of  product 204,699,000  374,730,000  13,121,000  592,550,000 

The  size  of  the  liquor  industry,  the  annihilation  of  which 
Prohibition  contemplates,  is  shown  in  Table  2.  These  are  the 
official  figures  for  1909,  given  in  the  1910  census  report.  They 
show  that  the  liquor  industry,  that  is,  the  manufacturing  of 
liquor,  employs  a  body  of  men  about  the  size  of  the  entire 
standing  army  of  the  United  States,  that  its  invested  capital 
is  greater  than  the  total  assessed  value  of  the  city  of  St.  Louis, 
or  about  twice  what  the  Panama  Canal  cost,  and  that  the  total 
wages  it  paid  in  that  year  were  greater  than  those  paid  in  the 
same  year  in  the  hosiery  and  knit  goods  industries  of  the 
country. 

The  liquor  interests  claim  that  they  pay  higher  wages  than 
the  average  industry,  and  their  opponents  claim  that  a  given 
amount  of  capital  invested  in  the  liquor  business  will  furnish 


PROHIBITION  5 

employment  for  fewer  men  than  the  same  capital  invested  in 
almost  any  other  industry.  The  facts  seem  to  sustain  both  of 
these  contentions,  but  it  is  interesting  to  observe  that  a  smaller 
percentage  of  the  total  expenditure  goes  out  in  wages  than 
in  the  average  industry,  as  is  shown  in  Table  3. 

TABLE  3 

Per  cent  of  total  expenses  reported  for 

Industry                                 Salaries         Wages  Materials       Misc.  ex. 

Average  all  industries 5.1                  18.6  65.8                  10.5 

Distilled  liquors    i.o                    1.6  18.4                 79.0 

Malt  liquors 7.6                  13.7  32.2                 46.5 

In  Table  4  are  shown  the  statistics  concerning  the  con- 
sumption of  liquors  in  the  United  States.  The  increase  in  the 
number  of  Prohibition  and  local  option  states  has  not  yet 
decreased  the  amount  of  liquor  used.  The  per  capita  con- 
sumption is  now  five  times  as  much  as  it  was  in  the  middle 
of  the  nineteenth  century  when  the  first  Prohibition  movement 
began,  but  this  increase  has  been  in  the  malt  liquors  which 
contain  a  smaller  percentage  of  alcohol.  We  might  summarize 
this  table  by  saying  that  the  average  American  family  consumes 
almost  four  barrels  of  alcoholic  liquor  a  year. 

TABUS  4 
ALCOHOLIC  LIQUOR  CONSUMED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 

From   the   Statistical  Abstract   of  the    United   States  for   1914.    p.   675. 

Total 
Gals. 
4.17 
4.08 
6.42 
7.70 
8.67 
10.08 
12.28 
iS-53 
16.57 
17.76 
19.85 
22.19 
22.50 

Prohibition,  like  every  radical  social  reform  intended  for 
the  general  good,  should  be  judged  by  its  results.  And  what 


Total 

Per  capita 

consumption 

Year 

consumption 

Wines 

Spirits 

Beer 

Gals. 

Gals. 

Gals. 

Gals. 

1840   

71,244,823 

•29 

2.52 

1.36 

1850   

94,712,853 

.27 

2.23 

1.58 

1860   

202,120,007 

•34 

2.86 

3.22 

1870   

296,876,931 

•32 

2.07 

5-31 

1875   

381,065,041 

•45 

1.50 

6.71 

1880   

505,845,038 

.56 

1.27 

8.26 

1885   

689,424,459 

•39 

•27 

10.62 

1890   

972,705,175 

.46 

.40 

13-67 

1895   

1,142,552,426 

•30 

.14 

15-13 

1900   

1,349,732,435 

•39 

.28 

16.09 

1905   

1,694,455,976 

.41 

.42 

18.02 

1910   

2,045,353,450 

.65 

.42 

20.09 

1914   

2,252,272,765 

•52 

1.46 

20.51 

6  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

are  these  results?  Three  states,  it  might  seem,  have  tried 
Prohibition  long  enough  to  enable  students  to  form  an  opinion 
as  to  its  practicability.  Maine  has  had  it  since  1858,  Kansas 
since  1869,  and  North  Dakota  since  1889.  These  states  would 
appear  sufficiently  far  apart  to  furnish  a  threefold  experiment. 

But  even  if  these  states  had  made  no  amendment  in  their 
own  Prohibition  law  since  its  first  adoption,  the  changes  in 
the  United  States  law  are  such  that  we  have  not  yet  the  data 
necessary  to  form  the  basis  for  a  final  judgment  of  the 
workings  of  Prohibition.  The  "original  package"  decision  in 
1890  (135  U.  S.  100),  the  Wilson  law  in  1890,  and  the  Webb- 
Kenyon  law  of  1913  have  been  equivalent  to  fundamental 
changes  in  the  state  laws,  for  they  have  altered  the  status  of 
Prohibition  very  materially. 

Considering  these  facts,  how  well  has  Prohibition  succeeded? 

Prof.  A.  R.  Hatton,  of  Western  Reserve  University,  in 
speaking  to  the  Pittsburgh  Conference  for  Good  City  Govern- 
ment, said:  "Prohibition  by  law  operating  uniformly  through- 
out the  state  to  which  it  is  applied  is  one  of  the  highest  praised 
and  most  condemned  institutions  which  this  country  knows. 
The  fact  seems  to  be  that  it  deserves  without  stint  neither 
the  one  nor  the  other."  "The  advocates  of  the  prohibition  of 
the  liquor  traffic,"  says  the  Royal  Commission  of  Canada,  "claim 
that  where  laws  of  a  prohibitory  nature  have  been  enacted 
material  benefits  have  followed,  that  the  customs  of  the  people 
have  improved,  the  condition  of  the  community  been  greatly 
advanced,  the  moral  tone  raised,  and  marked  social  advance 
made.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  asserted  by  those  opposed  to 
prohibitory  legislation,  that  such  enactments  have  been  followed 
by  the  development  of  other  evils,  that  the  traffic  in  intoxicants 
has  been  driven  into  corners,  back  alleys,  and  other  hiding 
places,  that  it  is  carried  on  in  the  lowest  places  by  the  dregs 
of  society,  that  it  produces  perjury  and  hypocrisy  amongst  the 
people,  corruption  among  officials,  tends  to  increase  drunkenness 
in  homes  and  the  sale  of  adulterated  and  poisonous  liquor." 

Such  is  usually  the  testimony  when  zealous  social  reformers 
and  selfish  business  interests  come  in  conflict,  and  the  most 
obvious  conclusion  is  that  the  student  must  scan  all  evidence 
with  great  care.  In  the  heat  of  such  a  conflict  rash  and  inaccu- 
rate statements  are  apt  to  issue  from  both  parties.  For 
example,  in  a  pamphlet  very  widely  circulated  over  the 
country  a  few  years  ago  is  the  statement  that  alcohol  causes 


PROHIBITION  7 

2,000  deaths  a  day  in  the  United  States  alone,  and  in  another 
issued  by  the  other  side  we  read  the  claim  that  more  liquor  is 
consumed  in  the  Prohibition  states  than  in  the  license  states. 
No  comment  is  necessary!  While  one  need  not  go  quite  so 
far  as  Mr.  Isaac  Fisher  in  his  able  article  in  Everybody's 
Magazine  for  September,  1914  (reprinted  in  full  in  this  volume) 
and  say,  "The  only  opinions  on  the  liquor  problem  that  are 
worth  very  much  are  those  held  by  persons  who  hav£  no 
immediate  personal  interest  in  the  preservation  of  the  saloon 
or  in  its  abolition,"  still  we  should  at  least  go  so  far  as  to 
follow  the  rule  of  Bacon  and  "Read  not  to  believe  and  take 
for  granted,  but  to  weigh  and  consider." 


States    Dakota  Kansas 


204.2       298.8       169.5       194-9       1  08.8       172.2 


TABtE  5 

THE  RESULTS  OF  PROHIBITION 

(As  shown  by  the  official  statistics  of  the  United  States  for  the  year  1910 
unless  otherwise  indicated) 

West 

New  North 

United  England  Central    North 

States    States    Maine 
Insane    in    hospitals,    per 

100,000  of  population 
Feeble-minded    in    institu- 
tions,   per     100,000    of 

population    36.9 

Paupers  in  almshouses,  per 

100,000  of  population'  . 

Sentenced      prisoners      in 

penal     institutions     per 

100,000  of  population.. 

Per    cent    of    persons     10 

years  of  age  and  older 

illiterate    

Per  cent  of  homes  owned 
Per  cent   of  persons   6  to 
20-  years  of  age  attend- 

66.1 


54.4 


40.6         46.6 


91.5        181.4       127-3 


54-7 


27.0 


14-0 


121.4       161.6         98.3         80.2         63.3 


7.7 

45-8 


0.7 
39-7 


1.4 
62.3 


1.7 
58.1 


0.3 
75-1 


36.9 


43.5 


91.1 


0.8 
59-  * 


ing  school    62.3 

Per  cent  of  children  6  to 
14  years  of  age  attend- 
ing school  81.4  91.9 

Per  cent  of  total  popula- 
tion 15  years  of  age 
and  over  divorced ....  .5  .67 

Average  annual  number  of 
divorces  1898-1902  per 
100,000  of  married  pop- 
ulation    200  173 


67.7 


67.9         64.1         70.6 


89.2         87.5         80.7         88.2 


282 


248 


268 


286 


8  PROHIBTION 

Nothing  is  clearer  than  that  a  comparison  of  one  Prohibition 
state  with  one  other  adjoining  license  state,  in  respect  to  any 
of  the  conditions  that  it  might  be  expected  would  be  affected 
by  Prohibition,  would  not  form  the  basis  for  a  conclusion  of 
any  value.  In  Table  5,  on  page  7,  is  shown  a  comparison  of 
the  three  states  that  have  given  Prohibition  a  fair  trial  with  the 
whole  United  States,  and  with  the  group  of  states  of  which  the 
Prohibition  states  are  members.  This  is  the  fairest  comparison 
that  can  be  made,  yet  even  here  it  is  difficult  to  make  a  com- 
parison on  the  basis  of  crime  and  death,  because  these  statistics 
are  not  in  such  shape  as  to  make  a  satisfactory  comparison 
possible.  An  effort  to  make  such  a  comparison  was  made  by 
Hon.  Oscar  W.  Underwood  in  his  speech  on  the  Hobson 
resolution,  reprinted  in  this  volume,  to  which  the  reader  is 
referred. 

When  we  enquire  as  to  whether  alcohol  is  food  or  poison, 
we  find  that  the  authorities  are  not  in  agreement.  The  best 
we  can  do  is  to  quote  the  conclusions  of  the  best  experts. 

LAMAR  T.  BEMAN. 
September  20,  1915. 


GENERAL  DISCUSSION 

Coleman,   Walter  M.     Human   Biology 

The  Physiological  Effects  of  Alcohol 

The  more  blood  goes  to  the  skin,  the  more  blood  is  cooled. 
The  body  as  a  whole  may  be  cooler,  but  we  feel  warmer  when 
there  is  more  blood  in  the  skin  because  of  the  effect  of  the 
warm  blood  upon  the  nerves  of  temperature.  There  are  no 
nerves  for  perceiving  temperature  except  in  the  skin  and  mucous 
membrane,  and  the  body  has  practically  no  sensation  of  heat 
and  cold  except  from  the  skin  or  mucous  membrane.  That 
alcoholic  drinks  make  the  skin  red  is  commonly  noticed.  Often 
the  skin  is  flushed  by  one  drink;  the  bloodshot  eyes  and  purple 
skin  of  the  toper  are  the  results  of  habitual  use.  Can  you 
explain  why  alcohol  brings  a  deceptive  feeling  of  warmth? 
Why  does  alcohol  increase  the  danger  of  freezing  during  very 
cold  weather?  pp.  21-2. 

After  a  person  has  taken  an  alcoholic  drink  his  face  and 
skin  are  likely  to  become  flushed,  and  perhaps  his  heart  beats 
faster.  Most  investigators  have  found  that  the  alcohol  itself 
does  not  directly  increase  or  strengthen  the  action  of  the  heart. 
Hence  it  is  probably  wrong  to  call  alcohol  a  heart  stimulant. 
The  flushing  of  the  skin  is  believed  to  be  due  to  the  relaxing 
effect  of  alcohol.  It  relaxes,  it  paralyzes,  the  vasomotor  nerves 
which  control  the  little  muscle  fibers  in  the  walls  of  the  blood 
vessels.  The  relaxing  and  enlarging  of  the  blood  vessels  de- 
creases the  resistance  to  the  blood  flow,  and  the  heart  beats 
faster  under  its  lighter  load.  The  narcotic  effect  of  alcohol  is 
much  more  powerful  than  its  irritating  or  stimulating  effect. 
The  effect  of  alcohol  in  causing  fatty  degeneration  of  the 
muscles  often  weakens  the  heart  and  other  blood  vessels, 
pp.  67-8. 

A  few  years  ago  Professor  Atwater  proved  that  if  alcohol 
is  taken  in  small  quantities  it  is  so  completely  burned  in  the 
body  that  not  over  2  per  cent  is  excreted.  He  infered  that  it 


io  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

is  a  food,  since  it  gives  heat  to  the  body  and  possibly  gives 
energy  also.  His  experiments  did  not  show  whether  any  organ 
was  weakened  or  injured  by  its  use.  As  alcohol  is  chiefly 
burned  in  the  liver,  it  probably  cannot  supply  energy  as  is  the 
case  with  food  burned  in  nerve  cell  and  muscle  cell.  The 
heat  supplied  by  its  burning  is  largely  lost  by  the  rush  of  blood 
to  the  skin  usually  caused  by  drinking  the  alcohol.  Dr.  Beebe, 
unlike  Professor  Atwater,  experimented  upon  persons  who  had 
never  taken  alcohol,  and  whose  bodies  had  not  had  time  to 
become  trained  to  resist  its  evil  effects.  He  found  that  it 
caused  an  increased  excretion  of  nitrogen.  When  the  body 
became  used  to  it,  this  decreased,  but  the  proteid  excreted  by 
the  kidneys  contained  an  abnormal  amount  of  a  harmful 
material  called  uric  acid.  Uric  acid,  a  substance  which  is 
present  in  rheumatism  and  other  diseases,  is  usually  destroyed 
by  the  liver.  As  the  burden  of  destroying  the  alcohol  falls 
chiefly  upon  the  liver,  it  is  not  surprising  to  find  that  it  is  so 
weakened  and  injured  by  alcoholic  drink  that  it  cannot  fully 
perform  its  important  functions.  Bright's  disease  and  other 
diseases  accompanied  by  uric  acid  are  more  frequent  among 
persons  who  use  alcoholic  drinks,  pp.  113-4. 

Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Association.   35:68. 
July  14,  1900 

The  Relation  of  Alcohol  to  Nutrition.    Is  Alcohol  a  Food? 
Dr.  Winfield  S.  Hall 

W.  O.  Atwater,  professor  of  chemistry  at  Wesleyan  Uni- 
versity, Middletown,  Conn.,  and  head  of  the  work  being  done 
in  the  government  experiment  stations  on  the  chemistry  of 
foods,  has  arraigned  the  school  textbooks  of  physiology  before 
the  American  people  on  the  charge  of  falsehood,  because  these 
books  teach  the  boys  of  America  that  alcohol  is  a  poison  and 
not  a  food,  while  his  experiments  with  men  shut  up  in  a  calori- 
meter demonstrate  to  his  satisfaction  that  "alcohol  is  a  food" 
and  "not  a  poison,  in  moderate  quantities."  Professor  Atwater's 
definition  of  food  is  "that  which  taken  into  the  body  builds 
tissues  or  yields  energy."  Note  especially  the  alternative 
between  "tissue-building"  and  "energy-yielding."  According  to 
this  experimenter,  any  substance  is  a  food  if  it  is  oxidized  "in 


PROHIBITION 


ii 


the  body"  anywhere  between  the  mouth  and  the  excretory 
surface.  Not  since  the  days  of  Liebig,  a  half-century  ago, 
have  the  bars  that  set  a  boundary  to  foods  been  so  ruthlessly 
torn  down.  Even  iron  filings  and  phosphorus  satisfy  the  terms 
of  this  definition;  and  a  long  list  of  ptomains,  leucomains,  and 
toxins  come  clearly  within  the  definition. 


Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Association.  35:  71. 
July  14,  1900. 

Dr.  Winfield  S.  Hall 


The  Truth  About 


Alcohol 


1.  A    certain    quantity    will   pro- 
duce a  certain  effect  at  first,  but  it 
requires  more  and  more  to  produce 
the    same    effect    when    the    drug    is 
used  habitually. 

2.  When    used    habitually,    it    is 
likely    to    induce    an    uncontrollable 
desire  for  more,  in  ever  increasing 
amounts. 

3.  After   its  habitual   use   a   sud- 
den    total     abstinence     is  likely  to 
cause  a  serious  derangement  of  the 
central  nervous  system. 

4.  Alcohol  is  oxidized  rapidly  in 
the  body. 

5.  Alcohol,   not   being   useful,   is 
not  stored  in  the  body. 

6.  Alcohol  is  a  product  of  decom- 
position of  food  in  the  presence  of 
a  scarcity  of  oxygen. 

7.  Alcohol    is    an    excretion    and, 
in    common    with    all    excretions,    is 
poisonous.     It  may  be  beneficial  in 
certain   phases   of  disease,   but   it  is 
never  beneficial  to  the  healthy  body. 

8.  The   use    of    alcohol,    in    com- 
mon   with    narcotics    in    general,    is 
followed  by  a  reaction. 

g.  The  use  of  alcohol  is  followed 
by  a  decrease  in  the  activity  of  the 
muscle-cells  and  brain  cells. 

10.  The    use    of    alcohol    is    fol- 
lowed by  a  decrease  in  the  secretion 
of  CO,. 

11.  The    use    of    alcohol  .is    fol- 
lowed   by    an    accumulation    of    fat 
thru  decreased  activity. 

12.  The    use    of    alcohol    is    fol- 
lowed by  a  fall  in  body  temperature. 

13.  The   use   of   alcohol    weakens 
and  unsteadies  the  muscles. 

14.  The  use  of  alcohol  makes  the 
brain  less  active  and  accurate. 


Food 


1.  A    certain    quantity    will   pro- 
duce   a    certain    effect    at    first,    and 
the  same   quantity  will   always  pro- 
duce  the   same   effect   in   a   healthy 
body. 

2.  The     habitual     use     of     food 
never     induces      an      uncontrollable 
desire    for    it,    in     ever    increasing 
amounts. 

3.  After  its  habitual  use  a  sud- 
den   total    abstinence    never    causes 
any     derangement     of     the     central 
nervous  system. 

4.  All  foods  are  oxidized  slowly 
in  the  body. 

5.  All    foods,    being    useful,    are 
stored  in  the  body. 

6.  All  foods  are  the  products  of 
constructive    activity    of    protoplasm 
in  the  presence  of  abundant  oxygen. 

7.  All   foods   are   formed  by   na- 
ture   for    nourishment    and    are    by 
nature  wholesome  and  always  bene- 
ficial to  the  healthy  body,  tho  they 
may     injure     the     body    in     certain 
phases  of  disease. 

8.  The  use  of  foods  is  followed 
by  no  reaction. 

9.  The   use   of  food   is   followed 
by     an     increased     activity     of     the 
muscle-cells  and  brain-cells. 

10.  The  use  of  food  is  followed 
by   an   increase   in   the   excretion   of 
CO,. 

n.  The  use  of  food  may  be  fol- 
lowed by  an  accumulation  of  fat, 
notwithstanding  increased  activity. 

12.  The  use  of  food  is  followed 
by  a  rise  in  body  temperature. 

13.  The  use  of  food  strengthens 
and  steadies  the  muscles. 

14.  The   use   of  food   makes   the 
brain  more  active  and  accurate. 


12  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

Stewart,  Dr.  G.  N.    A  Manual  of  Physiology,  pp.  618-19 

The  Facts  about  Alcohol 

1.  In  small   quantities   alcohol   is   oxidized   in  the    body,   a 
little  of  it,  however,  being  excreted  unchanged  in  the  breath 
and  urine.    A  certain  amount  of  protein  is  saved  from  decom- 
position when  alcohol  is  taken,  just  as  when  fat  or  sugar  is 
taken.    For  example,  the  addition  of  130  grams  of  sugar  to  the 
daily  food  of  an  individual  caused  a  sparing  of  0.3  gram  nitro- 
gen.   The  substitution  of  72  grams  alcohol  for  the  sugar  caused 
0.2    gram    nitrogen    to    be    spared.      (Atwater    and    Benedict.) 
Alcohol  is  therefore  to  some  extent  a  food  substance,  although 
it  is  not,  under  ordinary  circumstances,  taken  for  the  sake  of 
the  energy  its  oxidation  can  supply,  but  as  a  stimulant. 

2.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  this  energy  cannot  be 
utilized   as  a  source  of  work  in  the  body.     Indeed  a  certain 
amount    of    alcohol    may    be    normally    formed    in    the    tissues 
as  one  of  the  intermediate  products  in  the  oxidation  of  sugar. 
Heat  can  certainly  be  produced  from  it,  but  this  is  far  more 
than  counterbalanced   by  the   increase   in  the  heat   loss  which 
the  dilation  of  the  cutaneous  vessels  caused  by  alcohol  brings 
about. 

3.  It  is  a  valuable  drug,  when  judiciously  employed,  in  cer- 
tain diseases — e.  g.  pneumonia,  and  puerperal  insanity.  (Clouston.) 

4.  Alcohol  is  occasionally  of  use  in  disorders  not  amounting 
to  serious  diseases — e.  g.   in  some  cases  of   slow  and   difficult 
digestion.     In  these  cases  it  may  act  by  increasing  the  flow  of 
certain  of  the  digestive  secretions,  as  saliva  and  gastric  juice. 
This  effect   seems  to   more  than   counterbalance  the   retarding 
influence   which,    except   when   well    diluted,    it   exerts    on    the 
chemical  processes  of  digestion. 

The  action  of  alcohol  on  the  secretion  of  gastric  juice  has 
been  studied  in  a  dog  with  a  double  gastric  and  oesophageal 
fistula.  Before  or  during  a  sham  meal  of  meat,  alcohol  diluted 
with  water  was  given  as  an  enema.  After  the  enema  the  quantity 
of  hydrochloric  acid  secreted  increased  in  about  the  same  pro- 
portion as  the  quantity  of  juice,  but  the  pepsin  was  diminished, 
reaching  a  minimum  after  three-quarters  to  one  and  a  quarter 
hours.  The  increase  in  the  total  quantity  of  the  juice  and  in 
the  acid  over-compensated  the  moderate  diminution  in  the 


PROHIBITION  13 

digestive  power,  so  that  the  net  result  was  beneficial.  (Pekel- 
haring.)  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  strong  alcoholic 
beverages,  when  mixed  with  the  gastric  juice,  and  therefore 
when  taken  by  the  mouth,  retard  the  proteolytic  action,  so  that 
any  favorable  effect  on  the  secretion  of  the  juice  may  easily  be 
lost  in  the  subsequent  digestion,  unless  the  alcohol  is  dilute. 
(Chittenden  and  MendeL)  The  action  of  alcohol  introduced 
into  the  rectum  on  the  gastric  secretion  is  both  reflex  and  direct. 

5.  Alcohol  is  of  no  use  for  healthy  men. 

6.  Alcohol  in  strictly  moderate  doses   (not  more  than  i}4 
ounces   of   absolute   alcohol),   properly   diluted   and   especially 
when  taken  with  food,  is  not  harmful  to  healthy  men,  living 
and  working  under  ordinary  conditions. 

7.  Modern   experience   goes    to   show   that   in    severe   and 
continuous  exertion,  coupled  with  exposure  to  all  weathers,  as 
in  war  and  in  exploring  expeditions,  alcohol  is  injurious,  and 
it  is  well  known  that  it  must  be  avoided  in  mountain  climbing. 

Alcohol  in  small  doses,  when  given  by  the  stomach  or  (in 
animals)  injected  into  the  blood,  causes  stimulation  of  the 
respiratory  center  and  increase  in  the  pulmonary  ventilation. 
In  man,  this  increase  usually  amounts  to  8  to  15  per  cent,  but 
is  occasionally  much  greater.  But  the  limit  which  separates 
the  favorable  action  of  the  small  dose  from  the  hurtful  action 
of  the  large,  is  easily  overstepped.  \\Tien  this  is  done,  and  the 
dose  is  continually  increased,  the  activity  of  the  respiratory 
center  is  first  diminished  and  finally  abolished.  In  dogs,  for 
instance,  after  the  injection  of  considerable  quantities  of  alcohol 
into  the  stomach,  death  takes  place  from  respiratory  failure, 
and  the  breathing  when  the  heart  is  still  unweakened.  This 
is  the  final  outcome  of  a  progressive  impairment  in  the  activity 
of  the  center,  of  which  the  slow  and  heavy  breathing  of  the 
drunken  man  represents  an  earlier  stage. 

West  Virginia  Medical  Journal.  7:260-4.   February,  1913 
Alcohol  and  Heredity.    Dr.  C.  C.  Wholey 

Whether  or  not  the  question  of  the  effect  of  alcohol  upon 
heredity  be  debatable,  science  leaves  no  grounds  for  discussion 
as  to  the  direct  effect  upon  the  individual.  It  is  not  necessary, 
indeed,  to  call  upon  science  for  demonstration;  a  walk  through 


14  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

a  ward  for  alcoholics,  or  for  the  insane  in  any  hospital,  lays 
bare  the  appalling  results  of  chronic  alcoholism — all  grades  of 
inflammation  of  the  nerves  from  that  of  the  single  nerve,  or 
group  of  nerves,  to  complete  paralysis  of  the  arms  and  legs. 
There  is  in  the  body  no  nerve  which  may  not  become  the  seat 
of  inflammation  induced  by  alcohol;  and  the  brain  itself  may 
become  affected,  manifesting  the  injury  in  delirium  tremens, 
strange  delusions,  and  lapses  of  memory,  under  which  crimes, 
impossible  to  the  same  individual  under  normal  condition,  such 
as  forgery  or  murder,  may  be  committed,  and  finally  the  result 
is  all  too  often  incurable  insanity.  I  will  quote  from  the  latest 
bulletin  of  Manhattan  State  Hospital:  "Of  the  insane  under 
the  care  of  the  state  28  per  cent  owe  their  insanity  to  alcohol 
as  a  determining  cause.  In  many  instances  there  are  other 
contributing  causes,  but  these  cases  of  insanity  would  not  have 
occurred  had  it  not  been  for  the  use  of  alcohol."  Dr.  Hoch 
says:  "From  a  series  of  15,000  male  patients  admitted  to 
hospitals  in  New  York  and  Massachusetts,  24  per  cent  suffered 
from  alcoholic  insanity." 

Cushny,  the  most  noted  modern  authority  on  the  action  of 
drugs,  says:  "Even  the  smallest  quantities  of  alcohol  tend  to 
lessen  the  activity  of  the  brain,  the  drug  appearing  to  act  most 
strongly,  and,  therefore  in  the  smallest  quantities,  on  the  most 
recently  acquired  faculties,  to  annihilate  those  qualities  which 
have  been  built  up  through  education  and  experience,  the  power 
of  self-control,  and  the  sense  of  responsibility. 

Brief  Excerpts 

To  talk  of  alcohol  as  a  food  is  really  absurd. — Dr.  Woods 
Hutchinson  in  "A  Handbook  of  Health,"  p.  97. 

Alcohol  tends  to  lower  the  temperature  of  the  body  by 
increasing  the  amount  of  heat  lost. — Dr.  Milton  J.  Rosenaw  in 
"Preventive  Medicine  and  Hygiene"  p.  355. 

The  long  and  sad  experience  of  the  race  with  alcohol  proves 
that  the  attempt  to  adapt  the  body  to  its  use  should  be  given 
up. — Walter  M.  Coleman  in  "Human  Biology,"  p.  22. 

In  small  quantities  therefore  alcohol  can  act  as  a  food.  This 
function,  however,  is  quite  unimportant,  and  is  overshadowed 


PROHIBITION  15 

by  the  poisonous  action  of  the  substance. — Dr.  Ernest  H.  Star- 
ling in  "Principles  of  Human  Physiology"  p.  724. 

Alcohol  does  not  belong  to  the  poisons.  It  is  rather  a  sub- 
stance which,  taken  in  moderation,  nourishes  and  exerts  special 
effects  on  the  nervous  system,  effects  that  are  not  even  disturb- 
ances, and  therefore  not  phenomena  of  poisoning. — Dr.  J. 
Starke  in  "Alcohol,  the  Sanction  for  Its  Use"  p.  xx. 

I  think  that  I  am  not  overstating  the  case  in  saying  that 
an  ordinary,  healthy  adult  may  take  without  injury  il/i  to  2 
ounces  of  whisky  (or  other  spirits)  or  two  pints  of  light  ale, 
or  the  equivalent  in  some  other  form  of  alcoholic  drink,  in  a 
day.  Possibly  I  might  go  further  and  state  that  in  the  case 
of  a  young,  vigorous  man,  taking  much  vigorous  exercise,  pro- 
ducing excessive  tissue  waste,  even  more  might  be  consumed 
without  injury.  The  same  applies  to  the  hard-working  laborer, 
the  performance  of  whose  daily  work  entails  great  output  of 
muscular  energy. — Dr.  Sydney  Hillier  in  "Popular  Drugs" 
pp.  61-2. 

If  there  does  exist  any  minimum  of  alcohol  which  is  harm- 
less, it  must  be  exceedingly  small.  The  best  recent  statistics 
indicate  that  even  moderate  drinking  is  harmful.  The  results 
of  the  medico-actuarial  investigation  based  on  statistical  data 
from  forty-three  American  life  insurance  companies  covering 
an  experience  of  twenty-five  years  shows  (i)  that  the  indi- 
viduals who  took  two  glasses  of  beer  or  a  glass  of  whisky  or 
an  equivalent  amount  of  alcohol  in  any  form  each  day  showed 
a  mortality  18  per  cent  higher  than  the  average  of  the  group; 
(2)  that  the  mortality  among  those  who  had  indulged  in  occa- 
sional alcoholic  excesses  previous  to  their  application  for  life 
insurance  was  50  per  cent  higher  than  the  average,  which  means 
the  loss  of  four  years  to  such  lives;  (3)  that  men  who  acknowl- 
edged the  habit  of  indulging  somewhat  freely,  but  who  were 
still  considered  acceptable  for  insurance,  showed  a  mortality  of 
86  per  cent  higher  than  the  average.  These  were  all  men  who 
would  call  themselves,  and  who  would  be  called,  moderate 
drinkers. — Prof.  Irving  Fisher  in  "Eli  Spring  Book"  May,  1915. 


16  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

i 

Everybody's  Magazine.    31:383-8.    September,  1914 

Rum  and  Remedies.    Isaac  Fisher 

What  I  know  about  the  rum  or  liquor  question  is  really  what 
I  have  learned  from  the  experiences  and  investigations  of  others. 
The  whole  subject  is  so  broad  that  I  think  what  is  said  above 
is  true  of  all  persons  who  have  tried  to  understand  the  drink 
problem.  I  prefer,  therefore,  to  say  that  I  have  learned : — 

That  few  persons  have  taken  time  to  consider  that  there  are 
four  aspects  of  the  liquor  question;  namely:  legislative,  eco- 
nomic, physiological,  and  ethical  or  moral.  Great  hosts  of  those 
who  discuss  the  subject  assume  that  the  whole  question  is  ethical 
only. 

That  candidates  for  public  office  are  seldom  in  a  position 
to.  make  the  best  spokesmen  against  the  liquor  traffic,  nor  are 
their  words  worthy  of  greatest  weight  when  spoken  for  the 
saloon. 

That  the  only  opinions  on  the  liquor  problem  that  are  worth 
very  much  are  those  held  by  persons  who  have  no  immediate 
personal  interest  in  the  preservation  of  the  saloon  or  in  its  aboli- 
tion. Men  and  women  who  have  demonstrated  by  constructive 
work  in  other  fields  their  interest  in  mankind  at  large  deserve 
a  hearing  on  the  liquor  question  when  they  essay  to  discuss  it. 

With  these  premises  before  me,  I  determined  to  lay  aside 
the  partisan  conclusions  and  arguments  for  and  against  the 
liquor  traffic,  met  with  every  day,  and  search  for  the  conclu- 
sions of  persons  falling  within  the  third  class  above.  Two  sets 
of  such  persons  I  have  found:  (i)  The  Committee  of  Fifty; 
and  (2)  The  American  Society  for  the  Study  of  Alcohol  and 
other  Narcotics. 

The  Committee  of  Fifty 

The  men  who  composed  the  famous  Committee  of  Fifty,  in 
1898,  are  persons  long  connected  with  movements  concerning 
the  highest  good  of  the  United  States  of  America.  They  rep- 
resented different  communities,  occupations,  and  opinions;  and 
they  were  not,  with  very  few  exceptions,  candidates  for  office ; 
at  the  same  time  they  were  men  of  the  highest  personal  honor. 

Before  arriving  at  any  conclusions,  the  committee  examined: 

Prohibition  in  Maine 

Prohibition  in  Iowa 

South  Carolina  dispensary  system 


PROHIBITION  17 

Restrictive  system  in  Massachusetts 

Liquor  laws  of   Pennsylvania 

Ohio  liquor  tax 

Liquor  laws  in  Indiana  since  1851 

Missouri  local  option  law 

This  examination  concluded,  the  body  reported  at  great 
length  upon  the  subject.  Its  findings  on  the  legislative  aspects 
of  the  liquor  problem  may  be  summarized  as  follows: 

/.    Prohibition 

Successes:  Abolition  and  prevention  on  large  scale  of  sale 
of  distilled  and  malt  liquors  within  areas  covered  by  it. 

Removed  temptation  from  young  and  from  persons  disposed 
to  alcoholic  excess  in  communities  where  sentiment  is  strongly 
in  its  favor. 

Promoted  the  invention  and  adoption  of  many  useful  restric- 
tions. 

Failures:  Has  failed  to  exclude  intoxicants  completely  even 
from  districts  where  public  sentiment  has  been  favorable. 

Has  failed,  of  course,  to  subdue  the  drinking  passion. 

Evils:     Open  defiance  of  law. 

Evasion  of  law. 

Courts   have  been  weakened. 

Two-faced  and  mercenary  law  officers. 

Hypocritical  and  truckling  candidates  for  office. 

Unfaithful  office-holders. 

II.    Local  Option 

Possesses  the  merit  that  public  sentiment  supports  the  officials 
who  administer  the  law. 

///.    Licenses 

Weaknesses'-  Officials  elected  for  short  terms  make  bad 
licensing-agents  because  liquor  is  constantly  in  politics. 

Where  courts  grant  license,  the  former  are  placed  under  sus- 
picion, particularly  if  the  judges'  offices  are  elective. 

Where  commissioners  grant  license,  they  force  liquor-sellers 
into  politics  for  protection. 

Where  bonds  are  required,  it  has  been  found  that  wholesale 
liquor-dealers  get  control  of  retailers  by  signing  their  bonds 
for  them. 


i8  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

Certificates  of  character  for  liquor-dealers  have  not  proven 
of  much  value,  since  careless  officials  often  have  to  receive  them. 

IV.    Restrictions  on  Sales 

Apparently  these  have  reduced  the  consumption  of  liquor, 
though  the  amount  of  the  reduction  cannot  be  determined. 

V.    Checks  upon  Druggists 

The  license  restrictions  upon  druggists  have  checked  evil  to 
some  extent,  but  have  not  controlled  the  sale  of  liquor  by  drug- 
gists. 

The  committee  found  it  so  very  difficult  to  draw  any  useful 
inferences  as  to  the  effects  upon  the  liquor  traffic  of  arresting 
persons  for  drunkenness  that  they  did  not  attempt  to  formulate 
conclusions  on  the  subject. 

As  to  the  results  of  legislating  so  as  to  remove  from  the 
sale  of  liquor  the  motive  for  private  profit,  the  committee  held 
that  this  had  nowhere  been  successfully  carried  out  up  to  that 
time. 

Regarding  the  question  whether  Prohibition  prohibits — whe- 
ther it  has  decreased  the  consumption  of  intoxicants  and  dimin- 
ished drunkenness,  the  committee  said:  "No  demonstration  on 
either  of  these  points  has  been  reached,  or  is  now  attainable, 
after  more  than  forty  years  of  observation  and  experience." 

As  a  basis  for  its  report  on  the  economic  aspects  of  the 
liquor  problem,  the  committee  investigated  33  charity  organi- 
zations, 60  almshouses,  n  children's  societies,  and  17  prisons 
and  reformatories,  besides  having  the  assistance  of  several  state 
boards  of  charities  and  correction. 

The  committee's  report  on  the  economic  phase  of  the  sub- 
ject is  extremely  valuable  because  it  covers,  with  the  exception 
of  the  German  reports  of  1885  and  1887,  a  larger  number  of 
cases  than  any  other  report ;  a  greater  variety  of  cases  of  pauper- 
ism; a  much  wider  area  than  any  other  report,  and  a  greater 
number  of  nationalities.  Below  are  tabulated  some  conclusions 
which  logically  flow  from  the  committee's  investigations  of  this 
phase  of  the  subject: 

/.     The  Supposed  Creation  of  Wealth 

(Figures  are  for  the  year  1896) 

Of  corn,  rye,  and  barley,  58,000,000  bushels  went  into  the 
production  of  liquor. 


PROHIBITION  19 

In  1890,  $289,775,639  represented  the  annual  value  of  liquor 
produced. 

Capital  invested  in  making  and  retailing  liquor  was  over 
$957,000,000. 

It  was  estimated  that  1,800,000  persons  derived  their  liveli- 
hood from  the  liquor  traffic. 

The  liquor  traffic  paid  in  taxes  to  support  national,  state,  and 
local  governments  $183,213,124. 

//.    The  Destruction  of  Wealth— Poverty 

POVERTY   DUE  TO   LIQUOR 

Charity  Organization  Societies — 25  per  cent  of  poverty  found 
in  these  was  due  directly  and  indirectly  to  liquor.  18  per  cent 
of  poverty  was  due  directly  and  9  per  cent  indirectly.  (In  some 
cases  liquor  was  both  direct  and  indirect  cause,  making  seem- 
ing discrepancy.) 

22.7  per  cent  of  males  were  poor  because  of  their  own  drunk- 
enness; 124  per  cent  of  females  had  come  to  want  because  of 
their  own  intemperance.  3.8  per  cent  of  males  were  poor  from 
drunkenness  of  others;  but  17  per  cent  of  females  came  to  want 
through  drunkenness  of  others. 

14  per  cent  of  aliens  were  poor  from  liquor,  17  per  cent  of 
native-born  citizens,  and  25  per  cent  of  naturalized  citizens. 
19  per  cent  of  whites  found  were  poor  from  liquor,  and  9  per 
cent  of  negroes. 

Almshouses — 37  per  cent  of  persons  found  in  these  had  come 
to  want  through  use  of  liquor.  32  per  cent  of  cases  were  due 
directly  to  liquor,  and  8  per  cent  indirectly. 

42  per  cent  of  males  were  poor  because  of  their  own  drunk- 
enness, and  16.5  per  cent  of  females  because  of  their  own.  6  per 
cent  of  males  owed  their  poverty  to  drunkenness  of  others;  but 
12.7  per  cent  of  females  had  come  to  want  through  the  drunk- 
enness of  others. 

23  per  cent  of  aliens  were  poor  from  liquor.  29  per  cent  of 
native-born  citizens  poor  from  liquor.  43  per  cent  of  naturalized 
citizens  poor  from  liquor.  33  per  cent  of  whites  found  in  these 
were  poor  from  liquor,  and  17  per  cent  of  negroes. 

Destitution  of  children — 45  per  cent  at  least  due  to  intem- 
perance of  parents. 

43-5  per  cent  of  children  of  native-born  parents  were  des- 
titute because  of  drunkenness  of  parents;  49.5  per  cent  of  chil- 


20  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

dren  of  foreign  parents  were  so  destitute;  and  60.5  per  cent  of 
children  of  foreign  father  and  native  or  unknown  mother  owed 
their  want  to  the  same  cause. 

46  per  cent  of  children  of  white  parents  were  destitute  be- 
cause of  intemperance  of  their  parents ;  and  39  per  cent  of  chil- 
dren of  negroes. 

CRIME    DUE  TO   LIQUOR 

50  per  cent  of  cases  of  crime  were  due  to  liquor  in  connec- 
tion with  other  causes. 

31  per  cent  of  cases  of  crime  were  due  to  liquor  as  a  first 
cause. 

Economic  Forces   Working   Against  Liquor 

I.  The  Self-Interest  of  Wage-Earners. — The  influence  of 
labor  and  trade  unions  is  powerful  in  teaching — 

Sobriety  during  strikes 

Moderation  in  drink,  by  requiring  it. 

Sobriety,  by  refusing  at  times  to  help  reinstate  men  discharged 
for  drunkenness. 

Temperateness,  by  often   refusing  to   admit  drunkards. 

Sobriety,  by   excluding   drunkards    from   sick  benefits. 

Sobriety,  by  fining  members  for  intoxication. 

Sobriety,  by  excluding  liquor  from  all  of  their  entertain- 
ments. 

Sobriety,  through  desire  of  union  men  to  elect  only  sober 
men  to  fill  the  high  positions  in  the  unions. 

//.  The  Self-Interest  of  Employers. — Employers  have  been 
moved  to  prohibit  drinking  by  their  employees — 

To  set  good  example  for  other  employees. 

To  guard  against  temptation. 

To  prevent  accidents. 

To  secure  better  work. 

To  secure  more  economy. 

To  secure  greater   responsibility  in  positions  of  trust. 

Economic  Forces   Working  for,  or  Favorable  to,  Liquor 

The  capital  invested  in  the  liquor  traffic. 
The  number  of  persons  who  get  their  living  from  the  liquor 
traffic. 


PROHIBITION  21 

For  students  of  the  drink  problem,  the  most  valuable  find- 
ings of  the  committee  are  the  following: 

The  difficulties  in  the  way  of  researches  of  this  kind  are 
enormous.  In  matters  which  affect  private  character,  truthful 
reports  are  proverbially  hard  to  obtain.  The  accessible  statis- 
tics are  incomplete  or  inaccurate,  or  both.  The  effects  of  intem- 
perance in  promoting  vice  and  crime  are  often  mixed  with  the 
effects  of  many  other  causes,  such  as  unhealthy  occupations, 
bad  lodgings,  poor  food,  and  inherited  disabilities;  and  it  is 
very  difficult  to  disentangle  intemperance  as  a  cause  from  other 
causes  of  vice,  crime,  and  pauperism.  At  every  point  connected 
with  these  investigations  the  studious  observer  encounters  an 
intense  partisanship,  which  blinds  the  eyes  of  witnesses  and 
obscures  the  judgment  of  writers  and  speakers  on  the  subject. 

Although  the  committee  examined  the  physiological  aspects 
of  the  liquor  problem,  I  have  purposely  turned  from  their  report 
on  the  subject  to  that  of  a  body  of  medical  scientists — the  Amer- 
ican Association  for  the  Study  of  Alcohol  and  Other  Narcotics, 
in  session  in  Washington,  D.  C.,  in  1909. 

The  conclusions  reached  at  that  meeting  are  summarized 
as  follows: 

1.  Alcohol   not   a   food — Authority,   the    President    of    the 
American  Society  for  the  Study  of  Alcohol  and  other  Narcotics. 

2.  Not   only  a  poison,   but  renders  the   body  more  suscep- 
tible to  disease — Authority,  same  as  above. 

3.  Does  not  sustain  physical  powers  nor  prevent  fatigue — 
Authority  as  before    (also  pp.  45,  46). 

4.  Does  not   aid   digestion— Authority,   Dr.    J.    H.   Kellogg, 
Battle  Creek   Sanitarium. 

5.  Injures  the  entire  system—  Authority,  Dr.  C.  H.  Hughe?, 
Editor  the  Alienist  and  Neurologist.     Alcohol  abstracts  water 
from   the  tissues,   function   fails,  then    destruction  of   the  vital 
organs  sets  in. 

6.  Impairs  fecundity— Authority,  same  as  in  i. 

7.  Impairs  mentality— British  Association  for  the  Advance- 
ment of  Science, 

8.  Abridges  life— (Authority,  Sir  Victor  Horsley)  Through— 

A.      DISEASES    DUE    TO    ALCOHOL    ALONE 

Acute  alcoholic  poisoning;  acute  mania;  delirium  tremens; 
chronic  alcoholic  insanity;  alcoholic  epilepsy;  alcoholic  neuritis. 


22  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

B.      DISEASES   OF   WHICH   ALCOHOL   IS   FREQUENTLY   A 
DETERMINING    OR    CONTRIBUTING    CAUSE 

[Under  this  heading  Mr.  Fisher  mentions  twenty-five  diseases. 
We  have  not  room  to  print  the  list. — Editors.] 

C.      OTHER   AGENCIES 

Accidents  caused  by  alcohol;  infant  mortality  due  to  alcohol- 
ism of  mashers ;  premature  death  caused  by  alcohol. 

When  we  turn  to  the  discussion  of  the  effects  which  alcohol- 
ism has  upon  man's  ethical  relations — his  duty,  whether  to  him- 
self, his  family,  community,  state,  or  his  God — we  find  that 
there  is  little  need  for  extended  argument  or  minute  catalog- 
ing. The  only  thing  necessary  is  to  determine  to  what  extent 
alcoholism  is  responsible  for  these  sins  against  the  "Thou 
shalt's"  and  the  "Thou  shalt  not's." 

Alcohol  Weakens  the  Will 

Dr.  C.  H.  Hughes,  Editor  of  the  Alienist  and  Neurologist 
(Senate  Document  48;  6ist  Congress,  ist  session,  p.  21),  and 
a  great  cloud  of  other  witnesses,  say  that  that  alcohol  extracts 
the  water  from  all  the  tissues,  and  so  "robs  the  brain  of  its 
normal  functioning  capacity,  impairing1  it  in  mental  and  psycho- 
motor  and  moral  capabilities."  The  significance  of  this  state- 
ment is  best  understood  when  it  is  recalled  that  the  brain  and 
nerves  are  80  per  cent  water.  The  conclusion  here  is  irresistible : 

Intemperance  and  Drunkenness  Are  Wrong 

The  performance  of  all  duties,  the  use  of  all  faculties  are 
dependent  upon  the  will,  and  it  is  wrong  not  to  perform  one's 
duties.  Alcoholism  weakens — often  destroys — the  will.  There- 
fore, alcoholism  is  wrong  because  by  destroying  or  weakening 
the  will  it  prevents  the  performance  of  duties  which  of  right 
ought  to  be  performed. 

Best  Remedies  for  the  Liquor  Traffic 

Stop  denouncing  anybody  about  the  liquor  traffic. 
Get  the  truth  about  the  liquor  question  in  all  of  its  aspects. 
(a)     Interest  of  physicians  must  be  enlisted  so  that  they  will 
take  a  stand  against  liquor.    They  can  help  by — 


PROHIBITION  23 

Making  clear  statements  as  to  uselessness  of  alcohol  as  a 
food  and  medicine. 

Making  clear  statements  of  the  injurious  effects  of  alcohol 
upon  animal  organism. 

Showing  the  effects  of  the  habitual  use  of  small  quantities 
of  alcohol. 

Showing  the  effects  of  the  grasp  of  habit 

Showing  whether  the  pleasures  of  indulgence  can  offset  the 
resulting  evils. 

Giving  the  correct  explanation  of  the  seeming  stimulation  of 
liquor. 

Showing  the  relation  of  moderation  to  immoderation  and 
loss  of  self-control. 

(&)  Interest  students  of  morbid  psychology  in  the  study  of 
causes  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  and  8  mentioned  above. 

Get  the  truth  about  the  whole  liquor  question  to  the  people. 


Intercollegiate  Statesman.   12:73-6.   February,  1915 

The  Congressional  Debate  on  National  Prohibition. 
D.  Leigh  Colvin 

The  Hobson  Resolution 

Whereas  exact  scientific  research  has  demonstrated  that  alcohol  is  a 
narcotic  poison,  destructive  and  degenerating  to  the  human  organism,  and 
that  its  distribution  as  a  beverage  or  contained  in  foods  lays  a  staggering 
economic  burden  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  people,  lowers  to  an  appalling 
degree  the  average  standard  of  character  of  our  citizenship,  thereby  under- 
mining the  public  morals  and  the  foundation  of  free  institutions;  produces 
widespread  crime,  pauperism,  and  insanity;  inflicts  disease  and  untimely 
death  upon  hundreds  of  thousands  of  citizens  and  blights  with  degeneracy 
their  children  unborn,  threatening  the  future  integrity  and  the  very  life 
of  the  nation.  Therefore  be  it 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled  (two-thirds  of  each  House  con- 
curring therein),  That  the  following  amendment  of  the  Constitution  be,  and 
hereby  is,  proposed  to  the  states,  to  become  valid  as  a  part  of  the  consti- 
tution when  ratified  by  the  legislatures  of  the  several  states  as  provided  by 
the  constitution. 

"ARTICLE  — . 

"SECTION  i.  The  sale,  manufacture  for  sale,  transportation  for  sale, 
importation  for  sale,  and  exportation  for  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  for 
beverage  purposes  in  the  United  States  and  all  territory  subject  to  the 
jurisdiction  thereof  are  forever  prohibited. 


24  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

"SEC.  2.  Congress  shall  have  power  to  provide  for  the  manufacture 
sale,  importation,  and  transportation  of  intoxicating  liquors  for  sacramental, 
medicinal,  mechanical,  pharmaceutical,  or  scientific  purposes,  or  for  use 
in  the  arts,  and  shall  have  power  to  enforce  this  article  by  all  needful 
legislation." 

The  first  time  that  the  issue  of  national  Prohibition  ever 
reached  the  floor  of  Congress  it  received  a  majority  vote  in 
the  House  of  Representatives.  The  debate  on  December  22 
lasted  over  ten  hours  and  over  eighty  representatives  took  part, 
about  an  equal  number  on  each  side.  There  were  many  strong 
arguments  on  the  Prohibition  side,  but  the  Prohibition  advocates 
did  not  exhaust  the  resources  of  possible  material  to  the  degree 
that  the  anti-Prohibitionists  did.  This  was  due  partly  to  the 
fact  that  many  of  the  congressmen  are  comparatively  new  as 
advocates  of  Prohibition,  but  chiefly  to  the  fact  that  the  liquor 
interests  had  apparently  organized  their  forces  in  advance,  had 
assigned  different  phases  to  different  speakers  and  abundantly 
supplied  them  with  well  prepared  material.  The  liquor  sup- 
porters seemed  to  put  forth  about  every  anti-Prohibition 
argument  which  has  been  devised. 

The  Ten  Best  Speeches  on  Each  Side 

Only  a  suggestion  of  the  argument  is  possible  in  the  space 
here.  The  debate  is  contained  in  the  Congressional  Record  of 
December  22,  1914,  and  twenty-five  additional  speeches  or 
"extension  of  remarks"  are  in  the  back  pages  of  the  Record 
for  the  five  succeeding  days,  December  23,  29,  30,  31  and  Janu- 
ary 2,  1915,  with  a  few  scattered  through  later  dates. 

The  better  speeches  on  the  Prohibition  side  were  by  Hobson, 
pages  533  and  585;  Campbell,  518;  Kelly,  523;  Hulings,  532; 
Thomson,  538;  Webb,  539;  Lindquist,  547;  Powers,  550; 
Lindbergh,  564,  and  Stephens,  579. 

The  better  speeches  in  opposition  to  the  resolution  were  by 
Cantrill,  519;  Pou,  527;  Mann,  542;  Bartholdt,  553;  Barchfield, 
558 ;  Henry,  623 ;  Vollmer,  634 ;  Underwood,  691 ;  Witherspoon, 
702,  and  Morrison,  750.  "Extension  of  remarks,"  indicating 
the  positions  of  opponents  after  the  debate  was  over:  Graham, 
759;  Stringer,  874,  and  Adair,  955. 

I.     The  Argument  for  National  Constitutional  Prohibition 

i.  The  nature  of  alcohol.  Mr.  Hobson  based  his  funda- 
mental argument  on  the  scientific  facts  concerning  alcohol.  It 
is  (a)  a  protoplasmic  poison,  (6)  a  habit-forming  drug,  (c) 


PROHIBITION  25 

has  an  affinity  for  the  top  of  the  brain,  attacking  die  line  of 
human  evolution.  Alcohol  interferes  with  the  orderly  evolution 
of  the  human  race.  It  shortens  life  and  blights  offspring.  Do 
not  talk  about  Prohibition  invading  the  rights  of  individuals; 
liquor  blights  the  rights  of  our  citizens  before  they  are  born. 
Science  shows  that  not  only  distilled  liquors  do  harm,  but  all 
alcohol  does  harm,  and  that  not  only  the  abuse  of  alcohol  is 
bad  but  the  widespread  moderate  drinking  produces  much  more 
harm  than  drunkenness. 

2.  The  social  consequences  of  alcohol  as  a  basis  for  Prohi- 
bition were  frequently  referred  to.    We  owe  a  duty  to  society 
to  protect  it  against  the  many  evils  that  flow  from  the  liquor 
traffic. 

3.  Economic  aspects  were   (a)  the  big  balance  against  the 
liquor  traffic  on  account  of  the  cost  of  taking  care  of  its  victims, 
(ft)  the  loss  in  the  productivity  of  labor,  and  (c)  waste.     If 
the  traffic  in  itself  is  not  desirable  and  useful  then  the  employ- 
ment of  people  in  such  useless  and  harmful  occupation  is  •* 
waste. 

All  those  thrown  out  of  employment  by  the  adoption  of 
Prohibition,  and  many  more,  could  be  supported  in  comfort 
by  the  undeveloped  yet  fertile  lands  of  three  Minnesota  districts. 

4.  The  political  menace.    The  menace  of  the  growing  degen- 
erate  vote   due  to   liquor   affects   not   only  voters    and   states 
but  the  nation.     Liquor  not  only  creates  the  degenerate  vote 
but  furnishes  corruption  funds  to  purchase  it. 

The  organized  traffic  corrupts  elections,  debauches  voters, 
debases  many  legislators  and  other  officials.  Political  machines 
bottomed  on  the  liquor  traffic  and  supplied  by  it  with  corruption 
funds  influence  national  elections,  elect  senators  and  congress- 
men. The  purity  of  national  elections,  the  integrity  of  national 
lawmaking  bodies,  the  preservation  of  national  institutions,  all 
are  deeply  involved  in  the  question  and  demand  that  action  be 
taken  by  national  authority. 

5.  Why   national.     While    no    speaker   made    a    systematic 
argument   showing  the  national  character  of   the   issue,  most 
assuming  it   required  no  argument,  several  touched   upon  the 
national  aspect: 

(1)  The  traffic  is  national  in  scope,  its  proportions  menace 
the  nation  as  a  whole,  and  no  particular  state  is  competent  to 
solve  the  liquor  problem. 

(2)  Under  the  present  system  of  limiting  Prohibition  to 
X 


26  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

small  units  the  great  liquor  trust  has  trampled  upon  the  rights 
of  states  and  communities  and  has  taken  pride  in  proclaiming 
that  "Prohibition  does  not  prohibit."  This  pose  of  the  liquor 
outlaw  that  he  is  above  the  operation  of  local  law  is  a  conclusive 
demonstration  of  the  need  of  national  law. 

(3)  Local  option  and  state  Prohibition,  though  valuable  and 
useful,  have  not  proved  adequate. 

(4)  So  long  as  there  is  one  state  wet  it  will  be  the  base 
of  operations  and  source  of  supply  for  the  liquor  trust. 

(5)  A  state   does  not  have  the  right  to  be  wet,  because, 
being  wet,  no  neighboring  state  can  be  protected  in  its   right 
to  be  dry. 

(6)  Coping    with    trusts    and    monopolies    is    no    longer 
regarded  as  a  state  task.     The  liquor  trust  was  one  of  the  first 
and  worst  great  monopolies. 

(7)  This   is    a   nation,    and    in   many  matters    of    common 
interest   state   lines   and   state   rights   are  being  wiped   out   by 
obvious  necessities  arising  out  of  new  conditions  which  state 
power  cannot  meet  and  which  require  the  paramountcy  of  the 
federal  government,  and  hence  amendments  to  the  constitution 
are  from  time  to  time  required. 

(8)  It  is  not  a  question  of  whether  the   government  has 
the  moral  right  to  take  issue  out  of  the  hands  of  the  states. 
But  government  has  the   right   and  should  protect  the  people 
against  an  evil  that  is  degenerating  and  destroying  the  homes 
of  the  American  people. 

6.    Analogous  exercise  of  federal  power. 

(1)  Compared  with  the  conservation  movement.     The  gov- 
ernment conserves  forest,  mineral  and  water  power,  the  birds 
of   the   air   and   the   beasts   of   the   field,    excepting   alone   the 
youth   of   the   country,   the   human   element,    the    nation   itself. 
Prohibition  provides  for  the  national  conservation  of  humanity. 

(2)  Monopolies.     If  the  government  has  the  right  to  put 
out  of  business  the  great  monopolies  and  trusts  it  certainly  has 
the  right  to  put  the  liquor  monopoly  out  of  business. 

(3)  The  federal  government  spends  millions  to  eradicate  the 
foot  and  mouth  disease,  the  hog  cholera,  the  boll  weevil  and 
the  cattle  tick.    "Every  time  a  pesky  tick  straddles  the  back  of 
a  mangy  steer  in  any  of  the  barren  wastes  of  the  sunny  South 
has  not  the  state  rights  statesman  risen  up  in  consternation  and 
yelled  to  Uncle  Sam  for  help?    No  question  about  state  rights 


PROHIBITION  27 

then.  It  is  good  common  sense  and  good  state  rights  doctrine 
for  the  national  government  to  spend  millions  every  year  in 
killing  boll  weevils,  destroying  ticks,  and  saving  sick  hogs, 
while  not  a  copper  goes  to  suppress  the  demon  drink  which  is 
filling  our  prisons,  despoiling  our  homes  and  damning  our 
children  ?" 

7.  Why    constitutional   Prohibition.    To    cure   this    organic 
disease  we  must  have  recourse  to  organic  law.    It  is  needed  to 
give  permanency  and  to  bring  about  the  disintegration  of  the 
liquor  trust     If  Congress  in  the  exercise  of  the  taxing  power 
should  undertake  to  establish  Prohibition  by  statute  the  liquor 
trust  would  not  permanently  disintegrate,  because  what  any  one 
Congress  can  do  another  Congress  can  undo.     If  Prohibition 
becomes  established  there  will  be  a  chance  for  a  new  generation 
to  grow  up  sober. 

8.  The  object  of  the  amendment  is  to  take  away  the  power 
of  the  federal  government  and  the  states  to  propagate  the  liquor 
traffic.    It  aims  to  destroy  the  agency  that  debauches  the  youth 
of  the  land  by  stopping  the  profits  from  the  sale  of  liquor. 
It  is  not  a  sumptuary  measure.     "It  does  not  provide  that  a 
man  shall  not  have  or  make  liquor  in  his  own  home  for  his 
own  use.    It  is  directed  only  at  the  sale." 

This  drafting  of  the  amendment  so  as  to  avoid  the  criticisms 
of  being  a  so-called  sumptuary  measure  was  a  vulnerable  point 
which  the  opposition  took  large  advantage  of. 

9.  Submission.    Perhaps  more  time  was  taken  by  the  sup- 
porters of  the  resolution  in  urging  their  colleagues  to  submit 
it  to  the  states  and  let  the  people  decide  than  on  any  other  phase. 
The  people  as  the  sovereign  power  have  the  right  to  say  whether 
the  governmental  policy  of  partnership  with  the  liquor  traffic 
shall  be  continued     The  tremendous  popular  demand  for  sub- 
mission was  shown  by  the  fact  that  over  6,000,000  citizens  had 
petitioned   for  it,  ten  times  as  many   as   ever  petitioned   any 
government  in  the  history  of  the  world,  and  also  by  the  fact 
that  76  per  cent  of  the   area,  containing  57  per  cent  of  the 
people,  had  outlawed  the   saloon.     To  the  argument  that   the 
people's  will  should  be  supreme  the  opposition  responded  that 
it  was  not  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  but  to  the  members  of 
the  legislatures,  which  is  by  no  means  the  same  thing.     They 
also  pointed  out  that  it  is  different  from  an  ordinary  referendum 
in  that  there  is  no  time  limit  within  which  an  amendment  must 


28  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

f 

be  adopted.  If  once  submitted  by  Congress  there  is  practically 
no  rejection,  as  if  one  legislature  rejects,  it  may  be  brought  up 
at  each  succeeding  legislature  until  passed. 

10.  Refutation.  Much  of  the  time  of  the  supporters  of  the 
amendment  was  taken  in  refuting  the  contentions  of  the  oppo- 
sition. These  related  chiefly  to  (i)  personal  liberty,  (2)  state 
rights,  (3)  possible  amendment  by  minority,  (4)  revenue,  (5) 
confiscation,  and  (6)  concurrent  jurisdiction. 

(1)  On  personal  liberty  the  usual  arguments  on  both  sides. 

(2)  To  the  state  rights  contention  it  was  replied   (a)   that 
no  state  is  sovereign;  each  has  delegated  a  part  of  its  powers, 
and  its   powers   are  capable   of   being  further   reduced  by  the 
action  of  three-fourths  of  the  states,      (fc)  There  is  a  distinction 
between  the  invasion  of  the  rights  of  the  states  and  the  delega- 
tion of  further  power  to  the  national  government  by  the  states. 
It  is  not  robbery  of  the  power  of  the  states  when  the  states 
themselves   delegate   the   power   in   the   constitutional   manner, 
(c)  It  is  not  a  question  of  state  rights,  but  of  policy,  whether 
the  control  of  the  liquor  traffic  shall  be  placed  under  federal 
authority,  the  only  power  which  can  efficiently  control  it. 

(3)  To  the  statement  that  it  is  possible  for  a  minority  to 
amend  the  constitution  because  the  thirty-six  smaller  states  con- 
tain about  40,000,000  and  the  twelve  larger  states  51,000,000  it 
was  shown  how  it  is  possible  for  one-fortieth  of  the  voters  to 
prevent  ratification.     The  majority  of  the  voters  in  the  thirteen 
states  having  the   smallest  vote   was   370,000   in   1912.     Those 
desiring  to  amend  have  a  tremendous  handicap  and  it  was  shown 
that  practically  the   approval   of   the   large  majority  would  be 
required  before    the    constitution    was    amended.      To    oppose 
amendment  on  the  ground  of  a  possible  minority  would  be  to 
oppose  any  amendment  for  any  purpose. 

(4)  Revenue,     (a)    The  revenue  comes  from  the  consum- 
ers, not  the  traffic.      (&)    The  issue  is  revenue  versus  ruined 
lives,     (c)   Gladstone  was  quoted  that  given  a  sober  people  he 
would  find  an  easy  means  of  raising  revenue,     (d)  The  Ameri- 
can people  do  not  propose  to  support  the  government  through 
the  agencies  that  will  finally  destroy  it. 

(5)  Confiscation,     (a)     Court     decisions     cited,     especially 
Crowley  vs.  Christensen,  where  the  issue  was  directly  raised. 
(b)   Underwood  tariff  law  placing  sugar  on  the  free  list,  de- 
stroying property  interests  of  Louisiana  sugar  growers.     They 


PROHIBITION  29 

were  advised  to  turn  their  soil  to  growing  other  crops.  Simi- 
larly, money  invested  in  the  liquor  traffic  can  be  converted  into 
better  avenues  of  employment. 

(6)  To  the  contention  that  the  concurrent  jurisdiction  pro- 
vided in  the  resolution  was  not  practicable  and  that  there  could 
not  be  two  governments  with  different  penalties  occupying  the 
same  territory,  both  of  which  were  supreme,  there  was  cited 
the  case  of  the  old  Indian  Territory  part  of  Oklahoma,  where 
the  national  government  had  established  prohibition  as  an 
example  of  concurrent  jurisdiction  in  enforcing  Prohibition. 
Concurrent  action  regarding  the  foot  and  mouth  disease  was 
also  cited. 

//.    Argument  Against  the  Amendment 

The  six  arguments  above  cited,  with  especial  emphasis  on 
revenue,  confiscation,  and  state  rights. 

7.  Purpose  of  the  constitution.     The  organic  law  is  differ- 
ent  from   statute  law.     The  constitution   is   a   concise   general 
statement  of  those   fundamental  political  principles  which   are 
essential  to  political  liberty  and  on  which  the  people  are  in  sub- 
stantial  agreement.     The   provisions    of    a   constitution    should 
have  practically  unanimous  sympathy  and  support.    They  should 
not  be  placed  in  the  constitution  until  they  are  tried  out  and 
acquiesced    in    by    practically    all    the    people      The    thirteenth 
amendment  was  not  added  until  slavery  was  settled.  The  fifteenth 
amendment  was   not  the   result  of  crystallized  public  opinion, 
and  it  is  not  only  evaded  but  practically  ignored. 

8.  //  is  a  local  question.     If  only  one  state  opposed  Pro- 
hibition it  would  not  be  right  to  inflict  the  ideas  of  the  rest 
of  the  country,  so  far  as  this  local  question  is  concerned,  on 
that  one  state. 

9.  Imperialism.    Fear  of  federal  officers  and  federal  espion- 
age.    It  would  be  terrible  to  send  officers  from  one  state  to 
another.     An  army  of    federal   officials   would  be    required  to 
enforce  it. 

10.  Impossible   to   enforce.     Cannot   legislate    people    good. 
No  magnet  so  powerful  as  prohibited  temptation.     No  law  is 
stronger  than  the  sentiment  of  the  jury  in  the  jury  box. 

Prohibition  does  not  prohibit.  It  is  much  easier  to  enforce 
the  law  where  the  unit  is  small.  It  has  not  been  a  success  in 
the  Prohibition  states. 


30  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

11.  Party   interest.     The   Democratic   party   is    opposed   to 
Prohibition.    Quotations  from  all  the  platforms  since  1856  cited 
to    show   the   principles   of   the   party  are   against   Prohibition. 
Leading  Democrats  of  the  present  also  opposed. 

The  injection  of  Prohibition  is  a  conspiracy  to  break  up  the 
party.  How  could  the  party  carry  out  its  program  of  tariff 
reduction  if  the  liquor  revenue  is  done  away  with? 

12.  Prohibition  should  not  be  injected  into  national  politics. 
It  has  never   been  established  in   any   state   without  becoming 
the  sole  issue  for  many  years,  and  other  issues  should  not  be 
subordinated  to  the  enforcement  of  a  Prohibition  amendment 
which  cannot  be  enforced. 

13.  Objection  to  the  draft  of  the  amendment.     It  is  poorly 
drafted.     Ten  different  amendments  have  been   submitted.     It 
does  not  prohibit  the  manufacture.     It  legitimatizes  the  manu- 
facture for  personal  use.     The  resolution  is  greatly  misunder- 
stood.    It  does  not  serve  the  purpose  of  the  real  Prohibitionist 
who   wishes   to   stop   the   source   of   supply  by  prohibiting   the 
manufacture.     Clubs  could  manufacture  on  a  large  scale,  and  so 
long  as  liquor  is  not  sold  but  furnished  to  all  in  return  for 
uniform   dues  it  would  be  legal.     Importation  to  clubs  would' 
also  be  permitted. 

14.  Advocacy   of  a  counter  resolution.    Another  resolution 
to  prohibit  importation  and  interstate  transportation  was  intro- 
duced but  failed  to  receive  support,   as   Congress  already  has 
constitutional  power  to  pass  such  a  measure. 


AFFIRMATIVE  DISCUSSION 


I   Hate  the   Liquor  Traffic:   Speech  to   Indiana   Republican 
State  Convention 

J.  Frank  Hanly,  ex-Governor  of  Indiana 

Personally  I  have  seen  so  much  of  the  evils  of  the  traffic  in 
the  last  four  years,  so  much  of  its  economic  waste,  so 
much  of  its  physical  ruin,  so  much  of  its  mental  blight, 
so  much  of  its  tears  and  heartache,  that  I  have  come  to 
regard  the  business  as  one  that  must  be  held  and  con- 
trolled by  strong  and  effective  laws.  I  bear  no  malice  toward 
those  engaged  in  the  business,  but  I  hate  the  traffic.  I  hate  its 
every  phase.  I  hate  it  for  its  intolerance.  I  hate  it  for  its 
arrogance.  I  hate  it  for  its  hypocrisy.  I  hate  it  for  its  cant 
and  craft  and  false  pretenses.  I  hate  it  for  its  commercialism. 
I  hate  it  for  its  greed  and  avarice.  I  hate  it  for  its  sordid  love 
of  gain  at  any  price.  I  hate  it  for  its  domination  in  politics. 
I  hate  it  for  its  corrupting  influence  in  civic  affairs.  I  hate 
it  for  its  incessant  effort  to  debauch  the  suffrage  of  the  country; 
for  the  cowards  it  makes  of  public  men.  I  hate  it  for  its 
utter  disregard  of  law.  I  hate  it  for  its  ruthless  trampling  of 
the  solemn  compacts  of  state  constitutions.  I  hate  it  for  the 
load  it  straps  to  labor's  back;  for  the  palsied  hands  it  gives  to 
toil;  for  its  wounds  to  genius;  for  the  tragedies  of  its  might- 
have-beens.  I  hate  it  for  the  human  wrecks  it  has  caused.  I 
hate  it  for  the  almshouses  it  peoples ;  for  the  prisons  it  fills ;  for 
the  insanity  it  begets;  for  its  countless  graves  in  potters'  fields. 
I  hate  it  for  the  mental  ruin  it  imposes  upon  its  victims;  for 
its  spiritual  blight;  for  its  moral  degradation.  I  hate  it  for  the 
crimes  it  has  committed.  I  hate  it  for  the  homes  it  has 
destroyed.  I  hate  it  for  the  hearts  it  has  broken.  I  hate 
it  for  the  malice  it  has  planted  in  the  hearts  of  men — 
for  its  poison,  for  its  bitterness — for  the  dead  sea  fruit  with 
which  it  starves  their  souls.  I  hate  it  for  the  grief  it  causes 
womanhood — the  scalding  tears,  the  hopes  deferred,  the 
strangled  aspirations,  its  burden  of  want  and  care.  I  hate 


32  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

it  for  its  heartless  cruelty  to  the  aged,  the  infirm  and  the 
helpless,  for  the  shadow  it  throws  upon  the  lives  of  children, 
for  its  monstrous  injustice  to  blameless  little  ones.  I  hate  it  as 
virtue  hates  vice,  as  truth  hates  error,  as  righteousness  hates 
sin,  as  justice  hates  wrong,  as  liberty  hates  tyranny,  as  freedom 
hates  oppression. 

Commoner.    13: 13.    July  n,  1913. 
Denunciation  of  Alcohol.     Robert  G.  Ingersoll 

I  am  aware  that  there  is  a  prejudice  against  any  man  who 
manufactures  alcohol.  I  believe  that  from  the  time  it  issues 
from  the  coiled  and  poisonous  worms  in  the  distillery  until  it 
empties  into  the  jaws  of  death,  dishonor  and  crime,  it  demora- 
lizes everybody  that  touches  it,  from  its  source  to  where  it  ends. 
I  do  not  believe  anybody  can  contemplate  the  object  without 
being  prejudiced  against  the  liquor  crime. 

All  we  have  to  do,  gentlemen,  is  to  think  of  the  wrecks  on 
either  bank  of  the  stream  of  death,  of  the  suicides,  of  the 
insanity,  of  the  ignorance,  of  the  destitution,  of  the  little  chil- 
dren tugging  at  the  faded  and  withered  breast  of  weeping  and 
despairing  mothers,  of  wives  asking  for  bread,  of  the  men  of 
genius  it  has  wrecked,  the  men  struggling  with  imaginary  ser- 
pents, produced  by  this  devilish  thing;  and  when  you  think  of 
the  jails,  of  the  almshouses,  of  the  asylums,  of  the  prisons,  of 
the  scaffolds  upon  either  bank,  I  do  not  wonder  that  every 
thoughtful  man  is  prejudiced  against  this  damned  stuff  called 
alcohol.  Intemperance  cuts  down  youth  in  its  vigor,  manhood 
in  its  strength,  old  age  in  its  weakness.  It  breaks  the  father's 
heart,  bereaves  the  doting  mother,  extinguishes  natural  affection, 
erases  conjugal  love,  blots  out  filial  attachment,  blights  parental 
hopes,  brings  down  mourning  age  in  sorrow  to  the  grave.  It 
produces  weakness,  not  life.  It  makes  wives  widows;  children 
orphans;  fathers  fiends,  and  all  of  them  paupers  and  beggars. 
It  feeds  rheumatism,  invites  cholera,  imports  pestilence  and 
embraces  consumption.  It  covers  the  land  with  idleness,  misery, 
crime.  It  fills  your  jails,  supplies  your  almshouses  and  demands 
your  asylums.  It  engenders  controversies,  fosters  quarrels  and 
cherishes  riots. 

It  crowds  your  penitentiaries  and  furnishes  victims  for  your 


PROHIBITION  33 

scaffold.  It  is  the  life  blood  of  the  gambler,  the  element  of 
the  burglar,  the  prop  of  the  highwayman  and  support  of  the 
midnight  incendiary.  It  countenances  the  liar,  respects  the  thief, 
esteems  the  blasphemer.  It  violates  obligation,  reverences  fraud 
and  honors  infamy.  It  defames  benevolence,  hates  love,  scorns 
virtue  and  slanders  innocence.  It  incites  the  father  to  butcher 
his  helpless  offspring,  helps  the  husband  to  massacer  his  wife 
and  the  child  to  grind  the  patricidal  ax.  It  burns  up  men, 
consumes  women,  detests  life,  curses  God,  despises  heaven.  It 
suborns  witnesses,  nurses  perjury,  denies  the  jury  box  and  stains 
judicial  ermine.  It  degrades  the  citizen,  debases  the  legislator, 
dishonors  the  statesman  and  disarms  the  patriot  It  brings 
shame,  not  honor ;  misery,  not  safety ;  despair,  not  hope ;  misery, 
not  happiness,  and  with  the  malevolence  of  a  fiend  it  calmly 
surveys  its  frightful  desolation  and  unsatiated  havoc.  It  poisons 
felicity,  kills  peace,  ruins  morals,  blights  confidence,  slays  repu- 
tations, and  wipes  out  national  honor,  then  curses  the  world 
and  laughs  at  its  ruin.  It  does  all  that  and  more.  It  murders 
the  souL  It  is  the  sum  of  all  villainies,  the  father  of  all  crimes, 
the  mother  of  all  abominations,  the  devil's  best  friend  and  God's 
worst  enemy. 


Congressional  Record.    52:496-7.    December  22,  1914. 
The  Hobson  Amendment    Philip  P.  Campbell 

Already  the  people  have  voted  for  the  suppression  of  the 
traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors  covering  76  per  cent  of  the  area 
of  the  United  States,  and  57  per  cent  of  the  population. 

The  government  at  Washington  has  for  years  prohibited  the 
traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors  on  Indian  reservations  and  at 
military  reservations  and  posts,  and  recently  at  naval  stations 
and  in  the  navy  and  all  United  States  soldiers'  homes. 

Twelve  years  ago  the  Congress  prohibited  the  sale  of  intoxi- 
cating liquors  in  the  Capitol  building. 

Why  should  any  commodity  be  under  the  ban  of  the  law  to 
the  extent  that  this  already  is  in  the  United  States?  Evidently 
because  the  traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors  is  a  bad  thing.  These 
are  times  of  great  events.  Europe  has  staged,  let  us  hope,  the 
last  act  in  the  tragedy  of  war.  Incident  to  that  great  tragedy 
some  important  things  have  been  done.  The  czar  of  Russia, 


34  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

at  the  beginning  of  the  war,  deemed  it  important  to  his  empire 
and  to  his  people  that  he  should  have  under  his  control  the 
best  physical  and  mental  fiber  that  his  people  possessed,  and  he 
issued  a  ukase  prohibiting  during  the  continuance  of  the  war 
traffic  in  alcoholic  liquors.  The  czar  of  Russia  took  this  impor- 
tant action  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that  the  ukase  denied  to  the 
treasury  of  the  Russian  Empire  almost  a  half  billion  of  dollars 
in  revenue  on  the  very  threshold  of  an  expensive  war.  Evi- 
dently the  czar  deemed  it  more  important  to  his  empire  and 
his  people  that  he  should  prosecute  the  war  with  men  free  from 
the  influence  of  alcoholic  liquors  than  that  his  treasury  should 
have  a  half  billion  dollars  a  year  for  the  payment  of  the 
expenses  of  the  war. 

France  very  recently  has  prohibited  the  sale  of  absinthe  and 
other  alcoholic  liquors  during  the  war. 

On  the  2ist  day  of  November,  1910,  William,  emperor  of 
Germany,  in  addressing  the  naval  cadets  at  Flensburg,  said  in 
part: 

I  know  very  well  that  pleasure  in  drinking  is  an  old  heritage  of  the 
Germans,  but  we  must,  by  self-discipline,  free  ourselves  from  the  evil. 

In  the  course  of  my  reign  of  twenty-two  years  I  have  observed  that  of 
the  great  number  of  crimes  which  have  been  appealed  to  me  for  decision, 
nine-tenths  were  due  to  alcohol. 

Formerly  it  used  to  be  considered  a  smart  thing  for  a  youth  to  take 
and  "carry"  a  great  quantity  of  alcohol.  Those  ideas  belong  to  the  Thirty 
Years'  War,  and  not  longer  fit  our  times. 

Naval  service  demands  a  height  of  effort  which  it  is  hardly  possible  to 
surpass.  It  is  necessary  that  you  be  able  to  endure  continual  heavy  strain 
without  exhaustion  in  order  to  be  fresh  for  emergencies.  In  the  next  great 
war  .  .  .  nerve  power  will,  decide  the  victory.  Now,  the  nerves  are 
undermined  and  endangered  from  youth  up  by  the  use  of  alcohol.  Victory 
will  lie  with  the  nation  that  uses  the  smallest  amount  of  alcohol.  There- 
fore do  not  count  the  use  of  alcohol  one  of  your  privileges. 

This  is  a  matter  of  great  importance  to  our  navy  and  to  our  people. 
If  you  train  the  troops  to  renounce  alcohol,  I  shall  have  sound  and  sane 
subjects.  The  men  when  they  leave  the  service  will  carry  the  thought  back 
to  the  country.  I  beg  your  cooperation  in  this  work. 

The  emperor  evidently  believed  that  it  was  essential  to  his 
people  that  they  abstain  from  the  use  of  intoxicating  liquors  so 
that  they  could  serve  their  country  well  in  war.  If  mental  and 
physical  fiber  of  the  highest  order  are  important  in  war,  they 
are  alike  important  in  peace,  for  the  duties  of  peace  are  no  less 
important  than  those  of  war.  If  the  emperor  of  Germany  deems 


PROHIBITION  35 

it  detrimental  to  the  naval  cadets  in  the  service  of  his  navy  to 
use  intoxicating  liquors,  the  American  people  who  look  well 
to  the  peace  of  their  country  may  likewise  take  steps  to  provide 
for  a  sober  people  to  engage  in  the  pursuits  of  peace. 

It  is  charged  against  the  liquor  traffic  that  it  is  responsible 
for  50  per  cent  of  the  crime  in  the  United  States;  the  German 
emperor  says  nine-tenths  of  the  crime  in  Germany.  That  is  a 
more  severe  charge  than  is  made  by  the  advocates  of  prohibition 
in  the  United  States;  but  the  emperor  of  Germany  makes  that 
assertion — that  in  his  empire  intoxicating  liquor  is  responsible 
for  nine-tenths  of  the  crime.  Anything  that  is  responsible  for 
so  great  a  percentage  of  crime  ought  to  be  prohibited. 

It  is  claimed  that  in  the  United  States  the  traffic  in  intoxi- 
cating liquors  is,  directly  or  indirectly,  responsible  for  25  per 
cent  of  the  poverty,  37  per  cent  of  the  pauperism,  45.8  per  cent 
of  child  misery,  25  per  cent  of  insanity,  19.5  per  cent  of  divorces, 
and  50  per  cent  of  the  crime.  These  are  grave  charges,  and 
their  truth  has  not  been  denied. 

Intoxicating  liquors  cost  the  American  people  for  the  year 
1913  almost,  if  not  quite,  two  and  one-half  billions  of  dollars.  I 
ask  in  all  candor  what  the  American  people  got  for  that  enor- 
mous sum  of  money  besides  poverty,  insanity,  crime,  and  misery 
for  women  and  children?  What  good  did  they  get?  Whom 
besides  the  seller  was  benefited? 

Today  every  great  railway  company  in  the  country  prohibits 
the  use  of  intoxicating  liquors  by  its  employees.  Recently  the 
industrial  enterprises  of  the  country  are  following  in  the  lead 
of  the  railways  and  are  prohibiting  the  use  of  intoxicating 
liquors  by  their  employees. 

A  few  days  ago  the  Illinois  Steel  Corporation  posted  a  notice 
over  the  gates  leading  into  the  shops  serving  notice  that  the 
employees  could  choose  between  the  job  inside  and  the  use  of 
liquor.  There  is  something  so  deleterious  and  detrimental  and 
harmful  in  the  use  of  intoxicating  liquors  that  it  is  worthy  of 
the  serious  consideration  of  the  American  people.  The  question 
is,  Is  prohibition  of  the  manufacture,  importation,  and  sale  the 
proper  means  of  saving  all  the  people  from  the  harm  that  comes 
from  the  use  of  intoxicating  liquors  by  some  of  the  people  ? 

Every  other  means  has  been  tried.  The  growth  of  the  use 
of  intoxicating  liquors  in  the  United  States  is  alarming.  It  is 
said  that  it  fell  off  hi  the  last  year  or  two.  Well,  the  consump- 


36  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

tion  of  almost  everything  fell  off  in  the  last  year  or  two,  but  the 
alarming  fact  is  that  there  has  been  an  enormous  increase  in 
the  last  half  century  in  the  United  States  in  the  use  of  intoxi- 
cating liquors.  Has  it  benefited  the  manhood  and  the  woman- 
hood and  the  childhood  of  America?  If  so,  in  what  respect? 

Any  scourge  that  caused  injury  to  the  livestock  belonging 
to  the  American  people  that  the  liquor  traffic  caused  to  the 
manhod  and  womanhood  and  the  childhood  of  America  in  1913 
would  engage  'the  serious  attention  of  this  Congress  and  of  the 
country,  and  steps  would  be  taken  for  the  elimination  of  such  a 
scourge  at  any  cost. 

The  people  will  have  to  make  some  sacrifice  in  a  pecuniary 
way  in  order  to  rid  themselves  of  this  traffic.  It  pays  a  tax 
of  nearly  half  a  billion  dollars,  just  about  the  same  amount  that 
the  czar  of  Russia  sacrificed  when  he  prohibited  the  traffic  in 
his  empire.  Are  the  American  people  willing  to  do  in  peace 
what  the  czar  of  Russia  did  on  the  threshold  of  war?  It  is 
now  a  question  for  their  serious  consideration  and  for  yours. 


Bliss,  W.  D.  P.    New  Encyclopedia  of  Social  Reform  p.  967 
Prohibition  Prohibits.    William  P.   F.   Ferguson 

Prohibition,  the  opposite  of  permission,  is  not  a  synonym  of 
annihilation.  Those  who  say,  "prohibition  does  not  prohibit" 
— a  self-contradictory  proposition — mean  that  prohibition  does 
not  annihilate.  This  is  manifestly  true  of  all  kinds  of  prohi- 
bitions in  this  world,  those  of  the  divine  government,  of  family 
government,  and  of  civil  government  alike.  Prohibition  does 
not  annihilate,  not  even  when  it  forbids  murder,  adultery,  theft, 
false  witness,  and  Sunday-work. 

Prohibition  does  not  define  accomplishment,  but  only  the 
aim  and  attitude  of  government  toward  wrong.  License  is  a 
purchased  truce — sometimes  a  surrender ;  prohibition  is  a  decla- 
ration of  war.  License  is  an  edict  of  toleration — sometimes  a 
certificate  of  "good  moral  character";  prohibition  is  a  procla- 
mation of  outlawry.  The  first  requisite  of  law  is  justice.  A 
law  that  sanctions  wrong  is  not  law  at  all,  but  legislative  crime. 
It  is  not  "public  sentiment,"  but  public  conscience,  out  of  which 
law  should  be  quarried.  Law  is  an  educator.  Dueling,  and 
smuggling,  and  liquor  selling  were  once  in  the  "best  society." 


PROHIBITION  37 

Gradually  the  law  has  made  them  disreputable.  Rum-selling 
under  Prohibition  is  a  sneaking  fugitive,  like  counterfeiting — 
not  dead,  but  disgraced,  and  so  shorn  of  power. 

In  Maine  children  grow  up  without  ever  seeing  a  drunken 
man.  In  most  parts  of  Kansas  and  in  Iowa,  while  the  Prohi- 
bition law  was  in  force,  the  law  against  the  saloon  is  as 
effective  as  the  law  against  the  brothel  or  the  burglar.  To 
this  fact  testify  governors,  senators,  congressmen,  pastors, 
physicians,  manufacturers — against  whose  evidence  scarcely  a 
witness  can  be  brought  in  rebuttal  except  "anonymous."  The 
liquor-dealers'  statement  that  more  liquor  is  consumed  under 
Prohibition  than  without  it  is  canceled  by  actions  that  speak 
louder  than  words,  by  frantic  efforts,  at  great  cost,  to  defeat 
Prohibition  wherever  it  is  proposed. 


Congressional  Record.    52:602-9.    December  22,  1914 
The   Truth   About  Alcohol.    Richmond   P.    Hobson 

These  convictions  are  permanent,  because  they  are  founded 
on  questions  of  fact  and  not  of  opinion.  They  revolve  about 
the  nature  of  alcohol,  a  chemical  compound  whose  properties 
have  been  definitely  ascertained  at  the  hands  of  science.  Whether 
members  of  this  House  are  "wet"  or  "dry,"  all  should  acquaint 
themselves  with  the  recent  findings  of  science  as  to  what  alcohol 
really  is,  and  the  effect  it  really  has  upon  the  human  organisms, 
and  through  the  human  organisms  the  political  and  social 
organisms.  In  other  words,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  whole  question 
hinges  upon  the  truth  about  alcohol. 

The  Good  Book  tells  us,  "And  ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and 
the  truth  shall  make  you  free." 

I  assume,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  every  member  in  this  House  will 
be  loyal  to  the  truth  when  in  his  own  reason  and  in  his  own 
conscience  he  has  found  it.  Loyalty  to  the  truth  is  really  the 
true  test  of  a  man,  whether  he  is  in  the  image  of  his  Maker 
and  is  worthy  of  that  dignity  that  attaches  to  human  life  above 
the  life  of  the. brute  living  on  the  plane  of  self-preservation. 

I  realize  full^well,  Mr.  Speaker,  how  with  the  deceptive 
properties  of  alcohol  and  the  powerful  financial  interests  con- 
nected with  it  the  average  man  of  today  has  been  molded  in  an 
atmosphere  of  error  as  to  its  real  nature.  The  educational 


38  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

effects  of.  his  observation  as  to  the  harmful  effects  of  drunken- 
ness have  been  partly  dissipated  by  the  constant  reiteration  that 
the  harm  comes  from  the  abuse  and  not  the  temperate  use, 
the  results  of  which  do  not  appear  on  the  surface.  As  a  matter 
of  fact  the  effect  of  the  moderate  use  of  alcoholic  beverages 
spread  over  the  whole  nation  has  done  and  is  doing  vastly 
more  harm  than  all  the  drunkenness  and  intemperance  combined. 

The  substance  about  which  this  whole  question  revolves  is  a 
chemical  compound  of  the  group  of  the  oxide  derivatives  of  the 
hydrocarbons,  its  formula  being  Calls  (OH),  2  atoms  of  carbon, 
6  of  hydrogen,  and  I  of  oxygen.  Among  the  other  members 
of  this  group  may  be  mentioned  carbolic  acid,  chloral  hydrate — 
popularly  called  chloral — morphine,  and  strychnine.  Alcohol  is 
produced  by  the  process  of  fermentation,  in  which  process  fer- 
ment germs  devour  glucose  in  solution  derived  from  grain, 
grapes,  and  other  substances,  and  in  their  life  processes  they 
throw  off  waste  products  like  other  living  organisms.  One  of 
the  waste  products  is  the  gas  that  causes  bubbling.  The  other 
waste  product  is  the  liquid  alcohol.  Alcohol  is  then  the  toxin, 
the  loathsome  excretion  of  a  living  organism.  It  comes  under 
the  general  law  governing  toxins,  namely,  the  toxin  of  one  form 
of  life  is  a  poison  to  the  form  of  life  that  produced  it  and  a 
poison  to  every  other  form  of  life  of  a  higher  order.  The 
ferment  germs  are  single-cell  germs — the  lowest  form  of  life 
known — consequently  their  toxin,  alcohol,  is  a  poison  to  all  forms 
of  life,  whether  plants,  animals,  or  men — a  poison  to  the  ele- 
mental protoplasm  out  of  which  all  forms  of  life  are  constructed. 
The  first  scientific  finding  about  alcohol  is  that  "alcohol  is  a  pro- 
toplasmic poison."  An  organic  substance  placed  in  alcohol  is 
preserved  indefinitely,  because  no  living  thing — neither  germs  of 
decomposition  nor  the  ferment  germs  themselves — can  penetrate 
the  alcohol. 

We  must  therefore  surrender  all  our  preconceived  ideas  about 
the  supposed  food  value  and  benefits  of  alcohol,  even  in  the 
smallest  quantities.  As  an  illustration,  one  mug  of  mild  beer — 
supposed  to  be  beneficial  and  helpful — will  in  thirty  minutes 
lower  the  efficiency  of  the  average  soldier  36  per  cent  in  aiming 
his  rifle. 

Alcohol'  has  the  property  of  chloroform  and  ether  of  pene- 
trating actually  into  the  nerve  fibers  themselves,  putting  the 
tissues  under  an  anesthetic  which  prevents  pain  at  first,  but 


PROHIBITION  39 

when  the  anesthetic  effect  is  over  discomfort  follows  throughout 
the  tissues  of  the  whole  body,  particularly  the  nervous  system, 
which  causes  a  craving  for  relief  by  recourse  to  the  very  sub- 
stance that  produced  the  disturbance.  This  craving  grows 
directly  with  the  amount  and  regularity  of  the  drinking. 

The  poisoning  attack  of  alcohol  is  specially  severe  in  the 
cortex  cerebrum — the  top  part  of  the  brain — where  resides  the 
center  of  inhibition,  or  of  will  power,  causing  partial  paralysis, 
which  liberates  lower  activities  otherwise  held  in  control,  causing 
a  man  to  be  more  of  a  brute,  but  to  imagine  that  he  has  been 
stimulated,  when  he  is  really  partially  paralyzed.  This  center 
of  inhibition  is  the  seat  of  the  will  power,  which  of  necessity 
declines  a  little  in  strength  every  time  partial  paralysis  takes 
place. 

Thus  a  man  is  little  less  of  a  man  after  each  drink  he  takes. 
In  this  way  continued  drinking  causes  a  progressive  weakening 
of  the  will  and  a  progressive  growing  of  the  craving,  so  that 
after  a  time,  if  persisted  in,  there  must  come  a  point  where  the 
will  power  cannot  control  the  craving  and  the  victim  is  in  the 
grip  of  the  habit. 

When  the  drinking  begins  young  the  power  of  the  habit 
becomes  overwhelming,  and  the  victim  might  as  well  have 
shackles.  It  is  estimated  that  there  are  5,000,000  heavy  drinkers 
and  drunkards  in  America,  and  these  men  might  as  well  have  a 
ball  and  chain  on  their  ankles,  for  they  are  more  abject  slaves 
than  those  black  men  who  were  driven  by  slave  drivers. 

It  is  vain  for  us  to  think  that  slavery  has  been  abolished. 
There  are  nearly  twice  as  many  slaves,  largely  white  men,  today 
than  there  were  black  men  slaves  in  America  at  any  one  time. 

These  victims  are  driven  imperatively  to  procure  their  liquor, 
no  matter  at  what  cost.  A  few  thousand  brewers  and  distillers 
making  up  the  organizations  composing  the  great  liquor  trust, 
have  a  monopoly  of  the  supply,  and  they  therefore  own  these 
5,000,000  slaves  and  through  them  they  are  able  to  collect 
$2,500,000,000  cash  from  the  American  people  every  year. 

In  this  way  nearly  two-thirds  of  all  the  money  in  circulation 
in  America  in  the  course  of  a  year  passes  into  the  hands  of  the 
liquor  trust. 

Very  little  of  the  money  paid  for  liquor  remains  in  circula- 
tion locally,  because  liquor  employs  so  few  men  for  the  capital 
invested  and  pays  them  such  poor  wages. 


40  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

Labor  unions  ought  to  realize  that  liquor  is  their  deadliest 
enemy.  It  lowers  the  standard  of  character  and  the  standard 
of  living  of  labor.  It  dissipates  the  earnings  of  labor,  interferes 
with  savings,  and  increases  the  dependence  of  labor  upon  the 
will  of  capital.  It  breeds  the  violence  and  disorder  that  often 
bring  labor's  cause  into  disrepute  and  give  the  victory  to  their 
opponents.  In  an  industrial  struggle,  as  in  any  other  struggle,  if 
both  opponents  are  sober,  there  is  good  chance  for  arbitration. 
If  one  side  is  debauched  by  liquor,  it  will  lose.  The  road  to 
solve  the  problems  between  capital  and  labor  is  to  make  the 
whole  country  dry  as  the  mining  regions  of  Colorado  were  made 
dry  in  the  strike.  If  the  capital  now  invested  in  liquor  were 
put  to  useful  channels  it  would  employ  more  than  a  million  and 
a  half  additional  men,  wage-earners,  and  largely  solve  the  prob- 
lem of  the  unemployed.  This  tremendous  increase  in  the 
demand  for  labor  would  cause  a  general  rise  in  wages  and  a 
corresponding  rise  in  the  standard  of  living. 

Railroads,  armies,  manufacturing  plants,  and  other  employers 
of  men  are  rapidly  coming  to  realize  the  heavy  toll  of  inefficiency 
and  loss  of  productiveness  on  the  part  of  men  in  their  employ 
even  from  moderate  drinking.  Scientific  management  of  modern 
industry  in  every  branch  is  rapidly  coming  to  demand  total 
abstinence. 

Investigations  in  connection  with  employers'  liability  for 
accident  and  sickness  are  rapidly  disclosing  the  responsibility  of 
liquor  for  the  bulk  of  the  accidents  and  the  sickness  in  mines, 
mills,  and  shops  and  other  operations. 

My  figures  indicate  a  general  loss  of  efficiency  of  about  21^/2 
per  cent  for  the  American  producer,  on  the  average.  This  en- 
tails an  economic  loss  of  over  $8,000,000,000  by  the  nation.  As 
I  shall  point  out  in  a  few  moments,  liquor  causes  the  premature 
death  of  about  700,000  American  citizens  every  year.  This  entails 
an  economic  loss  of  about  five  billions. 

I  call  attention  of  members  to  the  charts  that  show  that 
liquor  is  causing  the  bulk  of  the  crime,  pauperism,  and  insanity 
and,  leaving  the  support  of  these  upon  the  public,  causes  a 
burden  in  direct  taxation  upon  the  American  people  of  nearly 
two  billions.  Taking  away  from  our  people,  as  pointed  out 
above,  two  and  one-half  billions,  the  sum  total  of  the  economic 
burden  laid  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  nation  approximates  the 
total  sum  of  about  $16,000,000,000.  We  call  the  federal  govern- 


PROHIBITION  41 

ment  extravagant  when  it  lays  a  burden  of  one  billion  for  pur- 
poses of  uplift  and  we  stand  by  complacently  as  liquor  places  a 
burden  of  sixteen  billions  for  purposes  of  degeneracy  and  de- 
struction, and  there  are  some  so  deluded  as  to  imagine  that  the 
government  should  encourage  liquor  because  of  the  "paltry  two 
hundred  and  odd  millions  of  revenue.  Let  no  enlightened  mem- 
ber talk  about  the  need  of  liquor  revenues.  I  say  to  him  what 
Mr.  Gladstone  said  to  the  deputation  of  brewers  who  made  the 
same  claim: 

Give  me  a  sober  people  who  do  not  waste  their  substance  on  strong  drink 
and  I  will  find  ready  means  of  raising  the  necessary  •  revenues  for  their 
government. 

The  liquor  trust  through  its  vast  hordes  of  money  corrupts 
our  elections,  not  only  to  control  the  results  in  wet  and  dry 
campaigns,  but  the  election  of  officers  and  political  parties  sub- 
servient to  liquor  interests.  In  many  wet  and  dry  campaigns 
bankers  have  been  put  under  duress  and  required  to  notify 
farmers,  merchants,  and  other  business  men  that  they  would  call 
in  their  loans  if  the  elections  went  dry. 

The  growing  degenerate  vote  directly  due  to  liquor  is  now 
menacing  not  only  the  elections  in  our  great  cities,  but  in  the 
states  that  have  large  cities,  and  even  in  the  nation  itself.  Liquor 
not  only  creates  this  degenerate  vote,  but  it  also  keeps  a  corrup- 
tion fund  available  to  purchase  that  vote,  and  does  not  hesitate 
to  spend  vast  sums  for  this  purpose.  In  this  way  it  stands  with 
club  in  hand  over  politicians  and  political  parties. 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  to  find  the  menace  of  this  great 
blighting  influence  in  our  political  life,  by  which  our  elections 
cannot  be  normal  and  political  forces  cannot  follow  in  their 
normal  course  without  cross  currents  and  counter  currents.  It 
is  vain  to  hope  for  honest  elections  until  the  country  is  dry. 

The  liberties  and  institutions  of  a  free  people  must  depend 
for  their  perpetuity  upon  the  average  standard  of  character  of 
the  electorate.  In  America  where  we  have  manhood  suffrage 
the  degeneracy  produced,  particularly  in  big  cities,  is  under- 
mining the  foundations  of  our  institutions. 

It  is  this  same  lowering  of  the  average  standard  of  character 
of  the  citizenship  in  the  past  that  entailed  the  overthrow  of  the 
liberties  of  Greece  and  Rome  and  other  republics.  It  seems 
rather  ironical  for  liquor  men  to  call  upon  the  name  of  liberty. 

Through  control  of  political  parties  and  politicians  and  from 


42  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

the  supply  of  needed  revenues  liquor  gets  a  strangle  hold  upon 
the  government,  and  for  ages  governments  have  largely  looked 
to  liquor  to  supply  revenues  and  give  support  for  continuance  in 
power. 

It  is  a  clear  sign  of  the  times  to  note  the  general  change  of 
attitude  of  the  governments  of  Europe  toward  liquor.  All  gov- 
ernments should  now  be  in  full  possession  of  the  findings  of 
science  as  to  the  real  nature  of  alcohol,  consequently  when  the 
general  war  broke  out  in  Europe  the  governments,  though  in 
great  need  of  revenues,  promptly  took  advantage  of  the  powers 
conferred  under  martial  law  to  strike  liquor  a  deadly  blow. 

Shortly  after  the  promulgation  of  martial  law  the  Russian 
government,  in  spite  of  the  loss  of  hundreds  of  millions  in 
revenue,  issued  a  proclamation  to  compel  prohibition  of  the 
national  drink — vodka.  This  order  has  been  made  permanent 
and,  broadly  speaking,  the  Russian  empire  is  to  remain  dry 
forever. 

The  French  government  likewise  issued  a  proclamation  of 
prohibition  of  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  absinthe,  and  has 
since  extended  this  to  include  other  distilled  liquors. 

After  the  proclamation  of  martial  law  the  German  gov- 
ernment closed  down  the  breweries  throughout  the  empire  and 
has  promulgated  drastic  measures  for  prohibition  in  the  war 
zone  of  the  east.  When  a  child  is  born  in  Germany  the  govern- 
ment sends  a  card  to  the  mother  warning  against  the  deadly 
nature  of  alcohol.  When  a  child  enters  public  school  in  Berlin 
the  Prussian  government  sends  an  anti-alcohol  card  to  the  father 
and  mother  by  the  child. 

It  seems  too  bad  that  the  Germans  who  have  cast  their  lot 
in  America  should  not  have  caught  the  progressive  spirit  of 
the  fatherland.  Eight  hundred  German  scientists,  116  of  them 
professors  in  German  universities,  have  made  a  unanimous 
report  on  the  nature  of  beverage  alcohol,  recommending  its 
complete  elimination.  A  German  staff  physician  of  the  German 
army  has  announced  that  "we  should  not  discuss  moderation 
with  a  man.  The  thing  has  long  since  been  settled  by  science. 
The  use  of  narcotic  poisons  is  simply  indecent  and  criminal." 

It  should  be  a  source  of  humiliation  to  well-informed  Ameri- 
cans that  our  government  shows  no  indications  of  change  of 
attitude  toward  liquor.  Our  need  for  revenue  is  much  less 
than  that  of  the  nations  at  war,  and  yet  in  sections  I  and  2  of 


PROHIBITION  43 

the  revenue  bill  recently  passed  we  turned  to  liquor  for  nearly 
one-half  the  total  amount,  strengthening  the  hold  of  liquor  upon 
the  finances  of  the  government.  Liquor  has  the  same  strangle 
hold  upon  the  throat  of  our  government  today  that  slavery 
had  before  1860.  Congress  has  not  permitted  the  cotton  planter 
to  deposit  his  cotton  in  bond,  but  it  has  done  everything  for 
the  distiller  so  he  can  place  his  liquor  in  bond  and  on  these 
warrants  get  financial  advances. 

The  first  finding  of  science  that  alcohol  is  a  protoplasmic 
poison  and  the  second  finding  that  it  is  an  insidious,  habit- 
forming  drug,  though  of  great  importance,  are  as  unimportant 
when  compared  with  the  third  finding,  that  alcohol  degenerates 
the  character  of  men  and  tears  down  their  spiritual  nature. 
Like  the  other  members  of  the  group  of  oxide  derivatives  of 
hydrocarbons,  alcohol  is  not  only  a  general  poison,  but  it  has  a 
chemical  affinity  or  deadly  appetite  for  certain  particular  tissues. 
Strychnine  tears  down  the  spinal  cord.  Alcohol  tears  down  the 
top  part  of  the  brain  in  a  man,  attacks  certain  tissues  in  an 
animal,  certain  cells  in  a  flower.  It  has  been  established  that 
whatever  the  line  of  a  creature's  evolution  alcohol  will  attack 
that  line.  Every  type  and  every  species  is  evolving  in  building 
from  generation  to  generation  along  some  particular  line.  Man 
is  evolving  hi  the  top  part  of  the  brain,  the  seat  of  the  will 
power,  the  seat  of  the  moral  senses,  and  of  the  spiritual  nature, 
the  recognition  of  right  and  wrong,  the  consciousness  of  God 
and  of  duty  and  of  brotherly  love  and  of  self-sacrifice. 

All  lif e  in  the  universe  is  founded  upon  the  principle  of  evo- 
lution. Alcohol  directly  reverses  that  principle.  Man  has  risen 
from  the  savage  up  through  successive  steps  to  the  level  of  the 
semi-savage,  the  semi-civilized,  and  the  highly  civilized. 

Liquor  promptly  degenerates  the  red  man,  throws  him  back 
into  savagery.  It  will  promptly  put  a  tribe  on  the  warpath. 

Liquor  will  actually  make  a  brute  out  of  a  negro,  causing 
him  to  commit  unnatural  crimes. 

The  effect  is  the  same  on  the  white  man,  though  the  white 
man  being  further  evolved  it  takes  longer  time  to  reduce  him 
to  the  same  level.  Starting  young,  however,  it  does  not  take 
a  very  long  time  to  speedily  cause  a  man  in  the  forefront  of 
civilization  to  pass  through  the  successive  stages  and  become 
semi-civilized,  semi-savage,  savage,  and,  at  last,  below  the  brute. 

The  spiritual  nature  of  man  gives  dignity  to  his  life  above 


44  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

the  life  of  the  brute.  It  is  this  spiritual  nature  of  man  that 
makes  him  in  the  image  of  his  Maker,  so  that  the  Bible  referred 
to  man  as  being  a  little  lower  than  the  angels.  It  is  a  tragedy 
to  blight  the  physical  life.  No  measure  can  be  made  of 
blighting  the  spiritual  life. 

Nature  does  not  tolerate  reversing  its  evolutionary  principle, 
and  proceeds  automatically  to  exterminate  any  creature,  any 
animal,  any  race,  any  species  that  degenerates.  Nature  adopts 
two  methods  of  extermination — one  to  shorten  the  life,  the  other 
to  blight  the  offspring. 

Alcohol,  even  in  small  quantities,  attacks  all  the  vital  organs 
and  the  nervous  system,  the  tissues,  and  the  blood.  A  large 
percentage  of  premature  deaths  arising  from  disease  are  due  to 
this  cause.  The  attack  on  the  blood  lowers  the  efficiency  of  the 
white  blood  corpuscles  to  destroy  the  disease  germs,  exposing 
the  drinker  far  more  than  the  abstainer  to  the  ravages  of  con- 
sumption, pneumonia,  typhoid,  and  other  germ  diseases.  The 
records  of  insurance  companies  show  that  in  the  periods  from 
twenty-five  to  forty-five  the  mortality  of  total  abstainers  is  only 
a  fraction  of  that  of  the  average.  This  means  that  the  bulk  of 
deaths  in  young  manhood  are  due  to  alcohol.  It  means  that 
people  ought  not  to  die  in  their  prime  any  more  than  animals. 

The  records  of  the  insurance  companies  show  that  a  man 
starting  at  the  age  of  20  as  a  total  abstainer  lives  to  the  average 
age  of  65,  whereas  starting  at  the  age  of  20  as  a  moderate 
drinker  he  dies  at  51,  losing  over  fourteen  years,  or  a  cutting 
down  of  nearly  one-third  of  his  days. 

Starting  at  the  age  of  twenty  as  a  heavy  drinker  a  man  dies 
at  thirty-five,  a  sheer  loss  of  two-thirds  of  the  span  of  his  whole 
life. 

We  are  dying  at  the  rate  of  1,000  deaths  per  61,000  of  the 
population.  Total  abstainers  in  our  midst  are  dying  at  the  rate 
of  560  per  61,000  of  the  population,  though  living  under  the 
same  conditions.  The  latter  figures  are  those  applied  to  adult 
males  as  shown  by  the  insurance  companies'  figures.  Investiga- 
tions show  that  the  shortening  of  life  of  the  offspring  is  far 
greater  and  more  serious  than  that  of  the  parent,  as  I  will  point 
out  later,  and  since  the  adult  males  are  the  fathers  of  the  young 
of  both  sexes  it  is  on  the  side  of  conservatism  to  apply  the 
proportion  to  the  whole  population,  so  that  we  can  conservatively 
say  that  440  additional  deaths  are  caused  every  year  per  61,000 


PROHIBITION  45 

of  the  population — deaths  that  are  premature  and  unnecessary. 
This  means  that  alcohol  actually  kills  fully  700,000  American 
citizens  every  year. 

When  these  figures  were  first  printed  they  were  subject  to 
some  ridicule  and  to  many  attempts  to  disprove  them.  Several 
German  scientists  have  employed  the  same  methods  of  reasoning, 
and  the  liquor  interests  of  the  continent  have  a  standing  offer 
of  6,000  marks  to  any  scientist  that  can  disprove  the  figures  of 
the  great  insurance  companies  which  are  the  foundation  of  this 
awful  conclusion. 

When  the  great  Titanic  sank  in  mid-ocean  with  her  precious 
cargo  and  shocked  the  whole  world,  she  carried  down  less  than 
i, 600  souls.  Alcohol  carries  down  to  a  premature  grave  every 
day  more  than  2,000  American  souls. 

Mr.  Gladstone  in  the  maturity  of  his  philosophy  announced 
that  "strong  drink  is  more  destructive  than  the  historic  scourges 
of  war,  pestilence,  and  famine  combined."  The  old  philosopher 
was  eminently  correct.  Many  battles  have  been  fought  in  history 
for  which  there  is  no  authentic  report  of  the  casualty,  but  of 
those  of  which  there  are  records,  from  the  Macedonian  war, 
300  B.C.,  down  to  and  including  the  Russo-Japanese  war,  the 
sum  total  foots  up  to  2,800,000  killed  and  wounded,  which,  being 
apportioned,  would  make  a  little  more  than  2,100,000  wounded 
and  a  little  less  than  700,000  killed.  Bearing  in  mind  the  qualify- 
ing circumstances,  it  can  be  generally  said,  therefore,  that 
alcohol  brings  to  a  premature  grave  more  Americans  in  one 
year  than  all  the  wars  of  the  world,  as  recorded,  have  killed 
on  the  field  of  battle  in  2,300  years. 

When  the  great  war  in  Europe  is  over  it  will  be  found  that 
the  sum  total  killed  on  the  field  of  battle  for  all  nations  will 
average  less  than  1,500  a  day.  Alcohol  averages  2,000  Americans 
a  day.  Europe  is  really  in  the  eyes  of  nature  better  off  today 
in  the  midst  of  her  great  tragedy  than  she  has  been  for  centuries, 
because  Europe  is  almost  dry.  The  convention  of  life  insurance 
presidents  recently  announced  that  Russia  is  saving  fully  50,000 
lives  of  her  adult  males  per  year  from  her  recent  prohibition 
order,  which  in  at  brief  period  of  time  will  far  more  than  make 
up  for  the  soldiers  killed  in  battle.  No  great  nation  was  ever 
overthrown  in  war  until  after  its  vitality  had  been  undermined 
by  degeneracy  arising  from  alcoholic  dissipation. 

When  a  soldier  falls  on  the  field  of  battle  we  all  realize  the 


46  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

tragedy,  but  in  reality  it  is  only  his  physical  life  that  has  been 
snuffed  out.  The  bullet  that  pierced  the  brave  soldier's  heart 
never  touched  his  character.  When  his  soul  rose  to  appear 
before  its  Maker  it  had  no  wound.  But  when  the  victim  is 
stretched  out  in  premature  death  from  alcohol  not  only  are  his 
heart  and  other  organs  and  tissues  of  his  body  wounded  but 
the  ghastly  wound  is  the  rent  torn  in  his  soul. 

Civilized  nations  forbid  in  warfare  the  use  of  flat-nosed 
bullets  that  spatter  in  the  flesh  and  bone.  Alcohol  uses  dum- 
dums that  not  only  spatter  in  the  flesh  and  bone  but  crash  into 
the  soul. 

I  realize  full  well  how  cruel  war  is,  having  had  friends  of 
mine  among  Spanish  officers,  men  who  had  been  kind  to  me  in 
prison,  who  had  treated  me  like  a  brother,  mortally  wounded, 
dying  in  agony.  On  board  the  Spanish  wrecks  shortly  after  the 
battle  of  Santiago  I  saw  the  dead  men  about  the  decks  where 
they  had  fallen  at  their  posts  of  duty.  I  realized  they  were 
brave  men  and  good  men,  and  my  soul  cried  out  at  the  cruelty 
of  their  being  killed  at  our  hands.  I  realized  not  only  the 
cruelty  but  also  the  calamity  of  war,  particularly  when  it  over- 
takes a  nation  unprepared  as  our  nation  is;  but  if  I  had  to 
choose  one  or  the  other  of  these  two  destructive  agents,  alcohol 
or  war,  I  would  rather  see  America,  sober,  stand  alone  and  face 
the  combined  world ;  I  would  rather  see  my  country,  as  defense- 
less as  I  know  she  is,  face  all  the  great  armies  of  the  world 
rather  than  to  see  this  great  internal  destroyer  continue 
unchecked  his  deadly  ravages  throughout  our  land. 

Alcohol  makes  a  deadly  attack  upon  the  organ  of  reproduc- 
tion in  both  male  and  female,  and  upon  the  nervous  system  of 
the  little  life  before  birth  in  the  embryonic  period.  One-half  of  I 
per  cent  of  alcohol  in  solution,  such  as  a  future  mother  might 
easily  have  in  her  circulation  in  attending  a  banquet  or  fashion- 
able dinner,  drinking  only  wine  or  beer,  will,  oft  repeated,  kill 
the  little  life  and  endanger  the  life  and  health  of  the  mother. 

If  both  parents  are  moderate  drinkers,  drinking  but  one  glass 
of  wine  or  beer  per  day  at  one  meal,  the  effect  will  more  than 
quadruple  the  chances  of  miscarriage  of  the  mother,  increasing 
over  400  per  cent  the  dangers  and  sufferings  in  maternity,  and 
will  nearly  double  the  percentage  of  their  children  that  will  die 
the  first  year  in  infancy.  The  children  of  drinking  parents  on 
the  whole  die  off  four  to  fivefold  more  rapidly  than  the  children 
of  abstaining  parents. 


PROHIBITION  47 

This  means  that  scores  and  scores  of  thousands  of  little 
children  die  every  year  from  cruel  wounds  inflicted  upon  their 
little  lives  before  they  were  born  at  the  hands  of  their  parents 
who  did  not  know. 

If  both  parents  are  alcoholic  one  child  in  five  of  those  that 
do  survive  will  become  insane  before  it  is  grown.  One  child  in 
seven  will  be  born  deformed.  One  child  in  three  will  become 
epileptic,  hysterical,  or  feeble-minded.  Only  one  child  in  six 
will  be  normal ;  five  out  of  six  will  be  blighted. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  both  parents  are  total  abstainers,  there 
will  be  no  more  dangers  and  suffering  in  maternity  than  in  the 
case  of  other  species;  and  no  matter  how  hard  the  lot  in  life  of 
the  parents  may  be,  nine  out  of  ten  of  their  children  will  be 
absolutely  normal  These  children  normally  born  will  be  easy 
to  bring  up,  and,  kept  safe  from  degeneracy  in  their  youth,  will 
tend  to  rise  one  degree  higher  and  nobler  in  character  than  their 
parents,  following  the  line  of  the  species  evolution.  If  a  family 
or  a  nation  is  sober,  nature  in  its  normal  course  will  cause 
them  to  rise  to  a  higher  civilization.  If  a  family  or  nation, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  debauched  by  liquor,  it  must  decline  and 
ultimately  perish. 

Rome  during  long  centuries  was  frugal  and  abstemious, 
practicing  absolute  Prohibition  within  its  walls,  and  during  this 
period  we  see  the  wonderful  rise  of  the  Roman  Empire.  When 
the  Romans  gathered  into  their  great  city  and  the  youth  gave 
themselves  over  to  dissipation,  we  see  the  decline  and  finally 
the  fall  of  that  great  empire.  Similarly  the  other  nations  and 
empires  of  the  past  have  risen  only  to  fall. 

We  are  all  familiar  with  thoroughbred  races  of  horses, 
dogs,  and  so  forth,  but  who  ever  heard  of  a  thoroughbred  race 
of  men?  We  know  that  great  aggregates  of  plants  and  animals 
continue  to  rise,  but  a  great  nation  is  only  born  to  die.  Here- 
tofore a  nation  has  only  been  able  to  rise  to  a  certain  level, 
when,  gathering  in  great  cities,  liquor  has  overtaken  the  youth 
and  a  great  millstone  has  settled  about  its  neck.  Back  it  sank, 
never  to  rise  again.  We  stand  in  the  presence  of  this  most 
startling  discovery  of  science — that  alcohol  has  absolutely 
disrupted  the  orderly  evolution  of  the  great  human  species. 

Science  has  thus  demonstrated  that  alcohol  is  a  protoplasmic 
poison,  poisoning  all  living  things;  that  alcohol  is  a  habit- 
forming  drug  that  shackles  millions  of  our  citizens  and  main- 
tains slavery  in  our  midst;  that  it  lowers  in  a  fearful  way  the 


48  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

standard  of  efficiency  of  the  nation,  reducing  enormously  the 
national  wealth,  entailing  startling  burdens  of  taxation,  encum- 
bering the  public  with  the  care  of  crime,  pauperism,  and 
insanity;  that  it  corrupts  politics  and  public  servants,  corrupts 
the  government,  corrupts  the  public  morals,  lowers  terrifically 
the  average  standard  of  character  of  the  citizenship,  and  under- 
mines the  liberties  and  institutions  of  the  nation;  that  it  under- 
mines and  blights  the  home  and  the  family,  checks  education, 
attacks  the  young  when  they  are  entitled  to  protection,  under- 
mines the  public  health,  slaughtering,  killing,  and  wounding  our 
citizens  many  fold  times  more  than  war,  pestilence,  and  famine 
combined;  that  it  blights  the  progeny  of  the  nation,  flooding  the 
land  with  a  horde  of  degenerates;  that  it  strikes  deadly  blows 
at  the  life  of  the  nation  itself  and  at  the  very  life  of  the  race, 
reversing  the  great  evolutionary  principles  of  nature  and  the 
purposes  of  the  Almighty. 

There  can  be  but  one  verdict,  and  that  is  this  great  destroyer 
must  be  destroyed.  The  time  is  ripe  for  fulfilment.  The  present 
generation,  the  generation  to  which  we  belong,  must  cut  this 
millstone  of  degeneracy  from  the  neck  of  humanity. 

What  is  the  remedy  for  this  great  organic  disease  that  is 
nation-wide  and  world-wide  in  its  blight?  Evidently  the  treat- 
ment must  itself  be  organic  and  must  itself  be  nation-wide 
and  world-wide. 

We  can  look  to  nature  and  find  out  in  what  organic  treatment 
consists,  for  instance,  in  diseases  of  the  body  physical.  In  the 
case  of  a  cure  for  such  a  disease  the  cure  consists  not  in  the 
curing  of  the  old  disease  tissues,  but  in  the  growth  of  young 
tissue,  and  the  very  essence  of  the  cure  is  to  insure  that  the 
disease  or  contagion  shall  not  extend  to  the  young  tissue,  giving 
nature  an  opportunity  to  grow  the  cure. 

The  cure  of  the  old  drinkers  is  not  nature's  cure  for  such 
an  organic  disease.  It  is  not  possible  by  enactment  of  a  law  to 
make  old  drinkers  stop  drinking,  to  change  the  deep-seated 
habits  of  a  lifetime.  The  amendment  proposed  in  this  resolu- 
tion does  not  undertake  to  coerce  old  drinkers  or  to  regulate 
the  use  of  liquor  by  the  individual. 

The  cure  for  this  disease  lies  in  the  stopping  of  the  debauch- 
ing of  the  young.  Our  generation  must  establish  such  conditions 
that  hereafter  the  young  will  grow  up  sober.  This  proposed 
amendment  is  scientifically  drawn  to  attain  this  end. 


PROHIBITION  49 

Upon  this  all  must  agree.  A  man  may  drink  himself,  but  if 
he  is  a  good  man  he  would  love  to  see  such  conditions  estab- 
lished that  the  young  hereafter  would  grow  up  sober. 

I  call  the  attention  of  members  to  the  chart  showing  that 
68  per  cent  of  all  the  drunkards  had  their  habits  contracted 
before  they  were  21,  30  per  cent  before  they  were  16,  and  7 
per  cent  before  they  were  12.  Less  than  2  per  cent  of  men  begin 
to  drink  after  they  are  grown  and  settled  down.  Some  vast 
agent  in  our  midst  is  systematically  teaching  the  boys  to  drink 
and  debauching  the  youth.  Who  is  it  that  carries  on  this  sinful 
business?  Certainly  it  is  not  the  drinkers.  A  man  may  drink, 
but  unless  he  is  a  hopeless  degenerate  he  would  not  teach  boys 
to  drink.  I  have  known  many  drinkers,  but  I  have  never  yet 
known  one  who  made  a  habit  of  teaching  boys  to  drink.  This 
sinister  agent  is  the  liquor  trust  of  America. 

Tens  of  thousands  of  paid  agents  all  over  the  land  are  carry- 
ing out  this  devilish  work.  The  most  deadly  work  thus  far 
has  been  in  the  cities  where  it  is  hard  for  parents  to  keep  track 
of  their  boys,  but  it  extends  to  towns  and  is  now  being  system- 
atically extended  to  country  settlements.  The  usual  method  in 
cities  is  to  operate  where  boys  come  together,  sometimes  having 
the  boys'  rendevous  in  saloons  but  more  frequently  in  pool 
rooms  and  other  places  of  amusement,  sometimes  on  vacant  lots. 
The  boot-legger  or  licensed  agent  of  the  liquor  trust  arranges  to 
have  the  boys  drink  before  breaking  up  to  be  sociable  or  as  a 
sign  of  manliness.  To  better  influence  the  young  boy  who  is 
just  beginning  a  special  drink  is  prepared  called  "Cincinnati," 
which  is  sweetened  to  appeal  to  the  boy's  taste.  In  some  cases 
where  it  is  difficult  to  reach  the  boys  through  agents,  as  for 
instance  in  the  state  of  Oklahoma,  the  liquor  trust  has  written 
to  them  giving  them  numbers  so  that  without  the  knowledge  of 
their  parents,  by  mail  or  express,  they  can  ship  them  liquor  free. 

In  order  to  effectively  and  scientifically  solve  this  question 
we  must  discover  and  must  remove  the  motive.  What  is  the 
motive  of  the  liquor  trust  in  this  vast  debauching  of  the  youth? 
Some  have  assumed  that  the  motive  is  to  harm  the  boys,  blight- 
ing the  homes,  and  degenerating  society  in  general.  On  this 
assumption  many  have  set  about  heaping  abuse  upon  the  agents 
of  the  great  liquor  trust.  For  my  part  I  realize  this  is  not  the 
motive,  that  most  of  these  agents  are  in  the  business  to  make 
a  living,  and  that  the  business  has  come  down  in  natural  courses 


So  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

from  the  past,  an  occupation  for  which  the  whole  of  society 
stands  responsible.  Recognizing  this,  I  have  abused  none;  I 
have  no  bitterness ;  I  have  no  desire  to  harm  any  man's  business. 

Mr.  John  McCullough,  president  of  the  Green  River  Distilling 
Co.,  of  Owensboro,  Ky.,  one  of  the  big  liquor  men  of  the  coun- 
try, has  written  to  the  big  men  in  the  business,  suggesting  that 
the  wise  thing  to  do  would  be  to  stop  fighting  and  ask  for 
terms  on  the  basis  of  being  allowed  ten  years  in  which  to 
adjust  their  business  and  for  the  government  to  set  aside  10 
per  cent  of  the  revenue  collected  from  the  business  every  year, 
and  at  the  end  of  the  ten  years  for  this  fund  to  be  used  to 
compensate  those  engaged  in  the  business  when  the  business  is 
closed.  I  have  no  authority  to  speak  for  others,  but  I  do  not 
hesitate  to  say  that  if  such  a  course  were  pursued  by  the  liquor 
trust  it  would  certainly  have  my  sympathetic  consideration  for 
statutory  adjustment.  The  South  could  have  received  hundreds 
of  millions  of  dollars  for  its  slaves  without  war,  but  when  it 
chose  war  it  could  not  come  back  after  war  and  hope  to  receive 
a  dollar  in  compensation.  The  conditions  are  analogous  for 
the  liquor  traffic,  though  liquor  has  no  real  legal  vested  rights, 
as  held  by  slavery.  If  liquor  continues  its  barbaric  warfare  to 
the  bitter  end,  it  need  not  come  asking  for  compensation. 

The  real  motive  in  teaching  the  boys  to  drink  is  to  develop 
future  customers.  With  a  reasonably  small  outlay  the  liquor 
trust  can  develop  this  appetite  in  the  young  and  when  the 
young  grow  up  with  an  appetite  then  as  men  they  buy  the 
liquor,  over  the  supply  of  which  the  liquor  trust  has  a  monopoly. 
The  large  profits  in  the  sale  of  their  goods  to  customers  thus 
developed  is  the  real  motive  of  the  great  liquor  trust  in  sys- 
tematically debauching  the  youth  of  the  nation. 

The  real  scientific  way  to  cure  this  evil  therefore  is  to  remove 
the  motive — the  profits  in  the  sale  of  the  goods.  Clearly,  this 
cannot  be  done  by  undertaking  to  coerce  those  who  drink,  but 
it  can  be  done  by  prohibiting  the  sale  and  everything  that  relates 
to  the  sale,  particularly  to  the  manufacture  for  sale.  This  can 
be  done  the  more  readily  as  barter  and  sale  for  profit  have  been 
subject  to  public  control  since  the  earliest  days. 

When  the  motive  is  removed  and  the  liquor  interests  can  no 
longer  derive  profits  from  the  sale,  then  the  great  liquor  trust 
of  necessity  will  disintegrate.  The  debauching  of  the  young 
will  thus  end  and  the  young  generation  will  grow  up  sober. 

In  this  way  no  effort  is  made  to  coerce  any  citizen.     Some 


PROHIBITION  51 

old  drinkers  desiring  to  stop  will  take  advantage  of  the  changed 
environment  and  stop,  and  other  old  drinkers  desiring  to  do  so 
will  continue  drinking  until  they  die,  subject  to  local  or  state 
regulation  or  control;  but  when  they  die  no  new  drinkers  will 
take  their  place  and  the  next  generation  will  be  sober.  This 
method  thus  takes  no  chance  of  invading  the  sanctity  of  the 
home  or  the  liberties  of  the  individuaL  Some  men  may  feel  that 
they  have  an  inherent  right  to  drink  liquor,  but  no  man  will 
feel  that  he  has  a  right  to  sell  liquor.  The  proposed  amendment 
does  not  touch  the  question  of  the  use  of  liquor,  and  partakes 
in  no  manner  of  the  nature  of  a  sumptuary  measure. 

Twelve  decisions  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  have 
declared  that  no  citizen  has  an  inherent  right  to  sell  liquor. 
What  this  amendment  does  is  to  declare  that  the  liquor  trust 
shall  not  for  petty  lucre  continue  to  debauch  the  young;  that 
neither  federal  government,  nor  state,  nor  any  citizens  shall 
fatten  upon  the  weaknesses  and  miseries  of  the  people. 

In  carrying  out  the  prohibition  of  the  sale,  manufacture  for 
sale,  and  all  that  relates  to  sale,  the  next  question  that  arises 
is  whether  the  scope  of  the  prohibition  should  be  limited  to 
small  units,  like  the  town  and  the  county,  or  should  extend  to 
the  large  units  making  it  state-wide  and  nation-wide.  It  is 
good  to  have  a  town  dry  rather  than  wet.  It  is  better  to  have 
a  county  dry  rather  than  wet;  but  if  prohibition  is  by  the  small 
unit,  then  wet  towns  and  wet  counties  will  be  found  near  by, 
and  the  virus  there  generated  will  pass  over  continuously  and 
rein  feet  the  dry  town  and  the  dry  county.  It  is  a  good  thing 
to  cut  out  one  root  of  a  cancer,  it  is  a  better  thing  to  cut  out 
another  root,  but  as  long  as  a  single  root  remains  it  will  gen- 
erate the  virus  and  inject  it  into  the  circulation  and  reinfect  the 
whole  system.  As  long  as  there  is  one  state  in  the  Union  that 
is  wet  it  will  be  the  base  of  operations  and  source  of  supply 
for  the  national  liquor  trust,  from  which,  through  interstate 
commerce,  to  infect  all  the  other  states.  Poison  generated  in 
any  part  of  the  body,  projected  into  the  circulation,  will  reach 
all  parts  of  the  body,  and  no  part  can  protect  itself.  The  states 
cannot  protect  themselves  against  interstate  commerce,  nor  can 
Congress  delegate  to  the  states  this  power.  The  liquor  traffic  is 
the  most  interestate  of  all  business.  Their  organization  is  a 
national  organization.  It  is  dealt  with  by  the  national  gov- 
ernment. 

Under  our  present  system  limiting  Prohibition  to  small  units 


52  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

the  great  liquor  trust  has  trampled  upon  the  rights  of  states, 
of  counties,  and  of  towns,  and  has  taken  pride  in  proclaiming 
that  "prohibition  does  not  prohibit." 

This  pose  of  the  liquor  outlaw  that  he  is  above  the 
of  local  law  is  a  complete  and  conclusive  demonstration  of  the 
need  of  a  national  law.  There  can  be  no  cure  of  A,  cancer  until 
all  the  roots  have  been  cut  out,  until  no  center^  of  contagion 
are  left  to  reinfect.  Local  option  in  various  fotyns,  and  even 
state-wide  Prohibition,  though  valuable  and  useful,  have  not 
proved  adequate.  Our  whole  experience  shows  thatSProAfttftoft 
must  be  national. 

If  Congress,  in  the  exercise  of  the  taxing  power,  should 
undertake  to  establish  Prohibition  by  statute,  the  great  liquor 
trust  would  not  permanently  disintegrate,  because  what  any  one 
Congress  can  do  another  Congress  can  undo.  Wet  and  dry 
elections  would  be  continually  following  each  other  all  the  time, 
and  the  country  would  be  wet  part  of  the  time  and  dry  part  of 
the  time,  and  the  youth  would  not  have  time  to  grow  up  sober — 
the  remedy  would  only  be  superficial. 

To  cure  this  organic  disease  we  must  have  recourse  to  the 
organic  law.  The  people  themselves  must  act  upon  this  question. 
A  generation  must  be  prevailed  upon  to  place  Prohibition  in 
their  own  constitutional  law,  and  such  a  generation  could  be 
counted  upon  to  keep  it  in  the  constitution  during  its  lifetime. 
The  liquor  trust  of  necessity  would  disintegrate.  The  youth 
would  grow  up  sober.  The  final,  scientific  conclusion  is  that 
we  must  have  constitutional  Prohibition,  prohibiting  only  the 
sale,  the  manufacture  for  sale,  and  everything  that  pertains  to 
the  sale,  and  invoke  the  power  of  both  federal  and  state  gov- 
ernments for  enforcement.  The  resolution  is  drawn  to  fill 
these  requirements. 


American  Issue,  Ohio  Edition,   23:2.   June  25,  1915 
Labor  Would  Gain  by  Prohibition.     Irving  Fisher 

The  workman  should  not  only  not  be  injured  by  Prohi- 
bition, but  he  would  be  benefited  by  the  wiping  away  of  all 
liquor  industries.  He  would  be  benefited: 

First,  by  saving  him  from  the  physiological  poison  of  alcohol, 
thus  increasing  his  working  (and  therefore  producing  and 
earning)  capacity. 


PROHIBITION 

Second,  it  would  lengthen  life  and  increase  the  working 
period  of  life  for  workmen. 

Third,  it  would  save  for  productive  and  useful  ends  the  vast 
amount  of  grapes  and  grain  which  are  now  worse  than  wasted. 

Fourth,  it  would  enable  the  workmen  now  engaged  in  these 
lines  to  turn  their  attention  to  producing  in  other  more  useful 
and  more  beneficial  directions.  At  present  the  men  who  work 
in  connection  with  the  liquor  industries  waste  their  work  socially 
because  they  render  no  equivalent  to  society,  but  on  the 
contrary,  injure  society  instead. 

But  even  the  dislocation  which  would  be  caused  by  sweeping 
away  the  production  of  alcohol,  is,  I  believe,  much  less  than 
the  working  men  imagine,  for  many  of  the  industries  associated 
with  the  production  of  alcohol  could  be  continued  without  much 
jar  by  adapting  them  to  somewhat  related  lines.  One  whisky 
manufacturer,  for  example,  has  already  put  an  anchor  to  wind- 
ward by  producing  grape  juice,  I  believe.  There  are  similar 
examples  from  other  industries.  Factories  have  changed  from 
the  manufacture  of  bicycles  to  the  manufacture  of  typewriters  or 
automobiles  or  firearms. 

Of  course,  it  would  be  idle,  as  well  as  wrong  to  attempt  to 
convince  all  workmen  directly  associated  with  the  production  of 
alcohol  that  they  personally  would  gain  by  abolishing  the 
industry.  But  it  ought  to  be  possible  to  convince  workmen  as  a 
whole  where  their  interests  lie.  Personally,  I  have  no  doubt  as 
far  as  labor  as  a  whole  is  concerned,  that  those  who  would 
be  even  temporarily  injured,  would  be  the  negligible  percentage, 
while  those  who  would  be  permanently  injured  would  be  a 
negligible  fraction  of  I  per  cent  The  other  99  per  cent  would 
be  greatly  benefited. 


Prohibition   in   Kansas.    Statement   Issued  by    Gov.   Arthur 
Capper.  March  25,  1915 

The  National  Wholesale  Liquor  Dealers'  Association  is  cir- 
culating much  literature  throughout  the  country,  which  is  so 
distinctly  misleading  and  harmful  that  prompt  and  forceful 
repudiation  of  its  contents  is  imperative. 

The  liquor  interests  do  not  fight  fairly;  they  resort  to  false- 
hood and  innuendo  and  subterfuge.  What  else  is  left  to  them? 
Can  they  defend  the  gambling,  the  resorts  they  own  and  use  to 


54  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

retail  their  poison?  There  is  one  thing,  and  one  alone,  that  the 
liquor  interests  can  do,  and  that  is  to  wade  into  the  statistical 
masses  of  the  census,  trusting  to  the  confusing  power  of  twisted 
figures  to  make  black  appear  white  in  the  eyes  of  the  average 
man. 

The  liquor  interests  have  declared,  in  effect,  that  the  legisla- 
ture of  Kansas  has  lied;  that  more  than  700  editors  of  Kansas 
have  lied ;  that  every  political  party  of  Kansas  has  lied ;  that 
every  minister  and  school  teacher  of  Kansas  has  lied ;  that  the 
president  of  the  Kansas  State  Retailers'  Association  has  lied; 
that  the  president  of  the  State  Bankers'  Association  and  166 
bankers  of  Kansas  have  lied;  that  the  president  of  the  State 
Medical  Society  has  lied ;  that  the  president  of  the  commercial 
clubs  of  Kansas  has  lied;  that  the  governor  of  the  state  of 
Kansas  and  many  state  officials  have  lied;  that  457,000  people 
who  piled  a  majority  on  the  wet  candidate,  Mr.  Billard,  in  the 
last  election,  and  thereby  endorsed  Prohibition,  have  lied. 

Cabell's  "Facts  about  Kansas" 

Just  at  present  the  wholesale  liquor  dealers  are  circulating 
an  article  by  Royal  E.  Cabell  on  "Facts  about  Prohibition  in 
Kansas."  Mr.  Cabell  says  that  Kansas's  death  rate  figures  are 
unreliable,  for  "Kansas  is  not  in  the  registration  area."  So 
he  takes  the  death  rate  of  Kansas  cities  and  compares  them 
with  the  state  death  rate  of  license  states,  and  makes  no  explana- 
tion that  the  rate  in  the  latter  case  is  dragged  down  by  rural 
statistics.  Since  Mr.  Cabell  first  wrote  his  article,  Kansas  has 
been  admitted  to  the  registration  area,  but  the  liquor  people  are 
still  industriously  circulating  the  statement — "Kansas  figures  are 
not  accepted  by  the  United  States  Government." 

Cabell  infers  that  Kansas  has  a  rate  of  death  by  violence, 
excluding  suicide,  of  123.  In  1912,  according  to  Dr.  J.  S.  Crum- 
bine,  secretary  of  the  board  of  health,  the  rate  of  violent  deaths 
in  Kansas  was  60.8,  including  both  accidents  and  homicides. 
Mr.  Cabell  has  taken  the  figures  for  leading  cities  and  compared 
them  with  the  figures  covering  both  cities  and  rural  districts  in 
license  states.  He  infers  that  the  rate  of  suicide  in  Kansas  is 
22  to  the  100,000.  According  to  the  figures  of  Dr.  Crumbine, 
the  rate  of  suicide  in  Kansas  in  1912  was  12.2. 

If,  in  this  literature,  issued  by  the  liquor  men,  they  want  to 
set  forth  facts  on  which  intelligent  opinion  may  be  formed,  why 


PROHIBITION  55 

does  it  not  say  in  this  connection  that  the  death  rate  in  Kansas 
in  connection  with  all  of  those  causes  of  death  in  which  alcohol 
prominently  figures  is,  in  nearly  every  case,  below  that  of  nearby 
states  and  is  in  every  single  case  below  that  of  the  registration 
area?  Why,  for  instance,  would  it  not  illuminate  the  problem  to 
say  that  while  the  death  rate  in  the  registration  area  from 
cirrhosis  of  the  liver  was  14,  in  Kansas  in  1912  it  was  only  7? 
Why  not  say  that  while  the  death  rate  from  violent  deaths  in 
in  the  registration  area  was  91.2,  in  Kansas  it  was  60.8?  It 
might  even  be  well  to  bring  out  the  fact  that  while  the  death 
rate  from  homicide  in  the  registration  area  was  6.6,  the  homicide 
rate  in  Kansas  in  1912  was  4.8.  It  undoubtedly  would  be 
instructive  to  say  that  the  death  rate  in  the  registration  area 
from  suicide  was  16.2,  and  in  Kansas  in  1912  was  12.2.  The 
death  rate  from  Bright's  disease  in  the  registration  area  was 
87.5,  and  in  Kansas  only  554;  for  pneumonia  in  the  registration 
area  89.2,  and  in  Kansas  in  1912  it  was  45.6. 

Mr.  Cabell  does  not  say  these  things.  They  contain  "the 
whole  truth,"  and  the  whole  truth  would  be  fatal  to  Mr.  Cabell's 
cause. 

Divorce 

Mr.  Cabell  figures  that  Kansas  has  a  divorce  rate  of  286,  but 
the  latest  available  reports  from  the  United  States  Government 
do  not  agree  with  him.  For  the  five  years,  1898  to  1902  inclu- 
sive, the  rate  of  divorce  in  Kansas,  according  to  the  United 
States  Government,  was  109  (not  286).  Divorce  statistics  are 
so  chaotic  and  are  affected  by  such  varying  conditions  that  it  is 
not  possible  to  make  a  reasonable  comparison,  but  when  Mr. 
Cabell  makes  an  error  of  177  to  the  100,000,  considerably  more 
than  doubling  the  Kansas  rate  for  purposes  of  his  propaganda, 
when  he  carefully  refrains  from  saying  that  the  divorce  rate  in 
the  Prohibition  state  of  North  Dakota  is  only  88;  that  in  Ari- 
zona (then  license)  it  was  120;  in  Arkansas  (then  license)  136; 
in  Colorado  (then  license)  158;  in  Idaho  (then  license)  120; 
in  Indiana  142;  in  Montana  167;  in  Oregon  (then  license)  134; 
in  Oklahoma  (then  license)  129;  in  Wyoming  118;  in  Texas 
131 ;  in  Washington  (then  license)  184 — when  he  ignores  these 
significant  facts  and  continues  his  false  figures,  there  is  no 
reason  why  he  should  receive  consideration. 

Mr.   Cabell  says  that  fifteen  license   states  have  a  rate  ot 


56  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

divorce  to  wives  because  of  husbands'  drunkenness  lower  than 
the  rate  in  Kansas.  But  he  carefully  kicks  sand  over  the 
important  fact  that  drunkenness  is  not  a  cause  for  divorce  in 
Vermont,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Maryland, 
Virginia,  West  Virginia,  North  Carolina  and  Texas.  Even 
then,  what  is  the  sense  in  saying  that  fifteen  license  states  have 
a  lower  rate  of  divorce  for  drunkenness  than  Kansas?  It  simply 
makes  obvious  the  fact  that  thirty-two  states  have  a  higher  rate. 
In  regard  to  this  divorce  question,  something  further  should 
be  said.  Divorce  is  not  common  among  foreign-born  citizens  or 
among  the  population  of  our  great  industrial  centers.  Some 
women  accept  their  daily  beating  uncomplainingly.  In  states 
where  the  population  is  largely  native  American,  where  women 
demand  consideration  on  the  part  of  their  husbands,  a  rough 
tongue-lashing  is  very  apt  to  result  in  a  divorce. 

Prisons 

It  is  stated  in  this  literature  that  Kansas  has  a  higher  life 
prisoner  rate  than  twenty-one  other  states.  But  it  omits  the 
important  fact  that  there  is  no  capital  punishment  in  Kansas. 
Kansas  imprisons  its  murderers  for  life ;  Illinois  punishes  them 
with  death.  The  thing  is  so  obvious  as  to  be  ridiculous. 

We  suggest  to  Mr.  Cabell  and  his  employers  that  they  present 
to  the  people  of  the  United  States  these  facts : 

The  prison  rate  in  1910  for  the  entire  United  States  was 
121.4;  in  Kansas  it  was  91.1;  in  North  Dakota,  another  Pro- 
hibition state,  it  was  63.  In  the  same  year  the  rate  of  commit- 
ments to  prison  in  the  United  States  was  520,  and  in  Kansas 
it  was  only  200,  while  the  average  rate  of  the  license  states  in 
the  west  north  central  division,  in  which  Kansas  is  located, 
was  465.  The  following  table,  showing  the  rate  of  commitments 
to  prison  in  the  whole  United  States,  in  the  division  of  states 
in  which  Kansas  is  located,  and  in  all  the  states  of  that  division, 
brings  out  the  truth  in  startling  fashion: 

United  States 520 

Minnesota 499 

Missouri    48 1 

South  Dakota 273 

Kansas  200 

West  North  Central  (average  of  license  states)   465 

Iowa  (then  license)   585 


PROHIBITION  57 

North   Dakota 163 

Nebraska 482 

Colorado   (then  license)    610 

Delinquent  Juveniles 

In  regard  to  the  question  of  juvenile  delinquency  Mr.  Cabell 
says  that  nineteen  states  had  a  lower  rate  than  had  Kansas. 
The  fact  is  that  some  of  these  states  had  no  juvenile  delinquents 
at  all,  because  they  had  no  such  system.  Consequently,  they 
show  up  much  better  than  Kansas. 

It  also  affects  the  situation  that  some  states  that  have  juvenile 
delinquency  systems  have  them  in  an  undeveloped  state ;  some 
states  have  an  extensive  parole  system;  some  states  spank  the 
children  for  offenses  that  put  them  in  charge  in  other  states. 
Why  should  not  Mr.  Cabell  say  that  North  Dakota,  a  Prohibition 
state,  has  the  lowest  juvenile  delinquency  rate  in  the  west 
central  division  of  states?  Why  should  he  not  say,  for  instance, 
that  Nebraska,  which  he  compares  with  Kansas,  had  a  percentage 
of  discharge  and  parole  of  51  as  compared  with  a  percentage  of 
39  in  Kansas?  These  are  some  of  the  things  that  it  is  necessary 
for  Mr.  Cabell  and  the  wholesale  liquor  dealers  to  avoid  as 
carefully  as  a  British  grainship  avoids  the  glint  of  a  periscope. 

Pauperism 

We  are  told  that  fourteen  states  had  a  lower  pauper  rate  than 
Kansas.  The  sentence  is  not  complete  or  it  would  read,  "and 
thirty-three  have  a  higher  pauper  rate  than  Kansas."  Mr.  Cabell 
says  that  Nebraska  has  only  a  slightly  higher  rate  of  pauperism 
than  Kansas,  but  he  does  not  bring  out  the  fact  that  Nebraska 
had  poorhouses  in  only  51  out  of  92  counties,  and  that  Kansas 
had  poorhouses  in  74  out  of  105  counties. 

A  complete  study  of  the  question  of  pauperism  furnishes  one 
of  the  most  amazing  arguments  for  Prohibition.  For  instance,  if 
we  take  all  the  Prohibition  states  and  all  the  license  states  (and 
they  are  both  so  well  scattered  as  to  make  a  comparison  fair), 
'we  find  that  on  the  basis  of  the  census  of  1910  the  paupers  in 
the  United  States  would  number: 

At  rate  for  the  continental  United  States 88,319 

Tf  the  rate  in  the  license  states  prevailed  thruout  the  country 108,808 

If  the  rate  in  the  Prohibition   states    prevailed   thruout   the   country  27,309 
If  the  Kansas  rate  had  prevailed  thruout  the  country 22,819 


58  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

The  United  States  as  a  whole,  according  to  the  figures  of 
the  census  of  1910,  had  a  poorhouse  commitment  rate  of  96.3. 
The  license  states  of  the  Union  had  a  rate  of  no,  and  the  Pro- 
hibition states  a  rate  of  29.8.  If  Mr.  Cabell  can  make  anything 
out  of  this,  let  him  go  to  it. 

Liquor  Consumption  in  Kansas 

Mr.  Cabell  says  he  has  been  unable  to  locate  any  reliable 
figures  in  regard  to  liquor  consumption  in  Kansas.  Indeed,  he 
is  habitually  unable  to  arrive  at  the  truth  or  to  locate  any  figures 
that  are  complete  and  correct.  With  great  pleasure  we  furnish 
him  with  the  following  liquor  consumption  statistics,  the  esti- 
mates being  made  from  reports  made  to  county  clerks  under  the 
Mahin  law : 

Kansas   population    1,690,949 

Liquor  consumption,  gals 6,239,601.81 

Paid  for  liquors $  5,303,666.04 

Paid  per  capita 3.04 

Per  capita  cost  in  nation  as  a  whole 21.00 

At  rate  of  $21  per  capita  Kansas  would  pay 34,509,929.00 

Saving  due  to  prohibition 29,206,263.00 

We  are  also  very  eager  to  furnish  the  following  figures  for 
Mr.  Cabell's  discussion.  They  were  secured  direct  from  state 
officials  by  the  temperance  society  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  show  the  discrepancy  between  the  federal  licenses 
and  state  licenses  (or  totals  of  local  licenses).  As  is  well  known, 
this  difference  between  federal  and  state  licenses  is  practically 
a  census  of  "blind  pigs"  in  any  state.  The  table  follows: 

Number  state      Number  federal      Excess  federal 

State                                     licenses  licenses  licenses 

Michigan    13,983  27,939  3,956 

Florida    354  1,267  913 

New  Hampshire 606  855  249 

Rhode  Island   397  1,552  i,i55 

Washington    2,340  3,169  829 

Texas    3,ioo  3,336  236 

Ohio    5,355  13,299  7,944 

Idaho    226  794  568 

Kansas 8766  766 

1  Both    wholesale    and   retail.  2  Retail    only.  8  June    30,    1914. 


PROHIBITION  59 

What  the   Witnesses  Say 

Let  us  call  the  witnesses  and  see  what  they  think  of  Prohi- 
bition in  Kansas.  If  anyone  should  know,  they  should  know, 
for  they  live  with  it  and  under  it : 

The  governor  of  Kansas  says  Prohibition  is  a  great  success. 

Every  state  official  who  has  spoken  out  says  Prohibition 
succeeds. 

More  than  700  editors  and  newspaper  men  of  Kansas,  in 
state  convention,  unanimously  endorsed  Prohibition. 

Every  political  party  in  Kansas  favors  the  Prohibition  law. 

No  minister  has  ever  opened  his  mouth  in  favor  of  return 
to  license;  neither  has  any  school  teacher. 

The  president  of  Kansas  retailers  says  Prohibition  pays. 

The  president  of  the  State  Bankers'  Association  believes  that 
Prohibition  is  a  tremendous  asset  to  Kansas. 

One  hundred  and  sixty-six  bankers  have  filed  their  testimony 
in  favor  of  the  law  with  the  temperance  society  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  and  only  six  could  be  found  in  all  the  state 
who  doubted  the  wisdom  of  this  legislation. 

The  president  of  the  Kansas  Medical  Society  believes  m 
Prohibition. 

The  president  of  the  Commercial  Clubs  of  Kansas  has  said 
that  Prohibition  has  added  real  value  to  every  acre  of  Kansas 
land. 

The  supreme  court  has  testified  in  the  following  strong  lan- 
guage to  the  benefits  of  the  Prohibition  law : 

The  prohibitory  law  is  well  enforced  thruout  the  state.  It  is  as  gener- 
ally well  enforced  as  any  other  criminal  law.  The  enforcement  of  the  law 
distinctly  promotes  social  welfare  and  reduces  to  a  minimum  economic 
waste  consequent  upon  the  liquor  traffic  and  allied  evils.  The  saloonkeeper 
and  his  comrades  have  been  excluded  from  effective  participation  in  the 
politics  of  the  state. 

And  to  completely  settle  the  question  for  all  time  the  leg- 
islature of  Kansas,  not  by  a  majority,  but  unanimously,  passed 
the  following  concurrent  resolution  at  the  last  session: 

Senate  Concurrent  Resolution  No.  33,  by  Senator  Kinkel — Concerning  the 

Welfare  of  Kansas  Under  Prohibition. 

Whereas,  The  liquor  interests  thruout  the  country,  and  those  allied  with 
them  in  their  nefarious  business,  are  publishing  abroad  in  form  of  paid 
advertisements  in  the  newspapers,  certain  false  and  defamatory  statements 


60  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

to  the  effect  that  prohibition  in  Kansas  has  caused  increase  in  crime,  death 
rate,  homicide,  suicides,  divorces,  and  juvenile  delinquents;  and, 

Whereas,  The  saloon  trust  is  making  use  of  juggled  statistics,  false- 
hoods manufactured  by  criminal  interests,  allied  to  the  alcohol  venders  and 
derogatory  statements  made  by  a  few  unreliable  and  irresponsible  citizens 
of  Kansas,  all  with  the  intention  of  creating  prejudice  in  the  minds  of  the 
legislators  of  other  state,  and  thus  influencing  proposed  anti-liquor  legisla- 
tion; and, 

Whereas,  There  is  a  lobby,  the  members  of  which  profess  to  be  Kansas 
men,  operating  in  the  legislation  of  the  state  of  Utah,  and  alleging  that  evil 
follows  in  the  train  of  Prohibition,  and  that  the  enforcement  of  the  pro- 
hibitory law  in  Kansas  has  resulted  in  multiplying  crime,  and  deteriorating 
all  the  mental  and  moral  faculties  of  the  people  of  Kansas;  therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  By  the  senate,  the  house  of  representatives  concurring  therein, 
That  all  of  such  charges  are  libelous  and  false,  and  do  but  represent  the 
sentiments  of  men  who,  when  this  state  exiled  the  saloon,  were  compelled 
to  leave  Kansas  for  her  good. 

Resolved,  That  the  reverse  of  these  statements  is  true;  that  the  state 
of  Kansas  is  cleaner,  better,  more  advanced  in  mental  culture,  and  stronger 
in  moral  fiber  and  conviction;  that  her  homes  are  happier  and  more  com- 
fortable, her  children  better  educated  than  ever  before  in  her  history;  that 
crime  is  less  prevalent  and  poverty  less  general;  and  that  all  this  is  due 
largely  to  the  fact  that  the  saloon  is  such  an  outlaw  that  none  of  her  school 
children  hsve  ever  seen  a  saloon,  and  are  unacquainted  with  the  appearance 
of  a  saloon  keeper;  and  be  it  further 

Resolved,  That  we,  as  representatives  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  hereby 
declare  our  allegiance  to  the  cause  of  temperance,  sobriety  and  right  living, 
as  exemplified  by  the  ultimate  result  of  constitutional  Prohibition,  and  its 
enforcement  in  our  midst,  and  that  we  are  opposed  to  any  return  to  the 
domination  of  intoxicating  liquors,  and  that  no  proposition  looking  to  a 
resubmission  of  the  prohibitory  amendment,  and  that  no  law  which  has  for 
its  object  the  reestablishment  of  places  for  the  sale  of  liquor  anywhere  in 
Kansas  will  be  given  serious  consideration,  either  by  the  legislature  or  by 
any  of  its  committees. 

Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  be  spread  upon  the  Journals 
of  the  house  "and  senate,  and  that  the  chief  clerk  of  the  house,  and  the 
secretary  of  the  senate  are  directed  to  send  certified  copies  of  this  resolu- 
tion to  all  states  of  the  union  which  now  have  legislatures  convened  and  in 
session  for  the  enactment  of  laws. 

The  figures  used  in  this  statement  are  correct  and  authori- 
tative. We  have  avoided  nothing,  evaded  nothing,  misconstrued 
nothing,  covered  nothing  up.  Anything  further  that  might  be 
said  would  simply  add  to  the  mass.  Let  the  American  people 
hear  the  truth  and  judge. 


PROHIBITION  61 

Report  of  the  Northeast  Experiment  Farm  at  Grand  Rapids, 
Minnesota.  May,  1909. 

The  Relationship  of  the  Liquor  Traffic  to  Agriculture  in 
Northeastern  Minnesota.    A.  J.  McGuire 

In  nearly  every  village,  town  and  city  in  northeastern  Minne- 
sota are  saloons.  The  average  in  number  is  about  one  to 
every  250  population,  not  of  the  population  of  the  towns  alone, 
but  of  the  entire  population,  country  and  town. 

Most  of  these  saloons  were  built  up  for  the  lumbering  indus- 
try, those  of  recent  years  for  the  mining  industry. 

The  lumbering  industry  is  practically  over  in  the  greater  part 
of  northeastern  Minnesota.  The  mining  industry  occupies 
relatively  but  a  small  area. 

The  coming  industry  of  northeastern  Minnesota  is  that  of 
agriculture.  It  is  this  industry  that  will  give  employment  to 
the  greatest  number  of  people,  and  it  is  the  source  from  which 
will  come  the  greatest  wealth. 

The  development  of  agriculture  in  northeastern  Minnesota 
is  yet  to  be  made.  Not  one-tenth  of  the  entire  area  is  in  the 
hands  of  actual  farmers,  not  one-tenth  of  that  under  cultivation. 

The  task  is  an  enormous  one;  the  clearing  of  the  land,  the 
building  of  roads,  and  the  drainage  of  its  great  swamp  areas. 
But  back  of  this  is  the  assurance  of  repayment  In  the  first 
foot  of  soil  is  a  greater  wealth  than  in  all  the  mines.  When 
under  the  plow  and  wisely  husbanded  the  agricultural  lands  of 
northeastern  Minnesota  now  unoccupied  will  provide  homes  and 
well  paid  employment  for  over  a  hundred  thousand  families. 

The  building  up  of  this  agriculture,  of  farming,  the  rapidity 
of  its  development,  and  the  profit  of  its  returns  will  depend  upon 
the  character  and  industry  of  the  men  who  engage  in  it,  and  not 
only  this,  but  upon  the  character  and  practices  of  the  local 
government.  . 

Any  influence  that  is  not  for  development,  that  weakens  and 
thwarts  the  strength  and  industry  of  the  working  people,  or 
diverts  public  funds  into  channels  from  which  no  good  is 
derived,  that  influence  has  no  place  in  northeastern  Minnesota 
today. 

Such  is  the  influence  of  the  liquor  traffic.  It  is  not  denied, 
but  it  is  believed  to  bring  money  to  a  town.  It  is  believed  that 


62  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

it  helps  to  pay  the  taxes,  that  it  is  the  means  of  securing- money 
which  otherwise  would  be  sent  out  of  the  country. 

The  argument  that  a  saloon  is  a  financial  aid  to  a  town  is 
commonly  used  in  behalf  of  the  liquor  traffic,  but  it  is  not  true. 
The  only  source  of  wealth  to  any  community,  the  only  abiding 
prosperity  lies  in  production.  The  saloon  produces  absolutely 
nothing,  nothing  that  is  desirable  or  helpful  to  any  normal  man, 
woman  or  child. 

That  a  saloon  is  a  financial  aid  to  any  commuuity  has  never 
been  proven.  That  it  is  a  positive  detriment  may  be  read  on 
the  record  books  of  every  county  in  northeastern  Minnesota. 

Please  note  the  following  from  the  1908  annual  report  of  one 
of  the  leading  counties: 

Expense,  district  court   $i  1,299.00 

Expense,  justice  court 4,211.00 

Board  of  prisoners  at  county  jail   2,198.00 

County  poor 8,806.00 


Total     $26,5 14.00 

Over  75  per  cent  of  this  entire  expense  was  directly  due  to 
crimes  developed  through  the  influence  of  the  liquor  traffic,  and 
through  poverty  arising  from  earnings  being  spent  for  drink 
instead  of  the  necessities  of  life. 

These  $26,000  for  the  conviction  of  criminals  and  the  relief 
of  poverty  may  have  been  justly  expended  under  the  circum- 
stances, but  while  we  expend  so  much  to  run  down  the  unfor- 
tunate criminal  and  to  relieve  the  poor,  would  it  not  also  be 
well  to  look  into  the  cause  of  this  horrible  catalog  of  crime  and 
poverty,  and  to  devote  some  attention  to  its  prevention,  rather 
than  so  much  to  its  relief? 

The  convicted  criminal  is  a  criminal  still,  and  the  family 
whose  husband  and  father  is  a  worthless  drunkard  finds  small 
solace  and  but  little  help  from  the  hand  of  public  charity. 

It  is  time  a  halt  was  called  to  this  unnatural  and  unnecessary 
expense,  and  from  the  farmers'  standpoint  more  than  any  other, 
for  it  is  against  the  land  that  this  tax  will  be  largely  charged. 

In  some  of  the  counties  the  land  tax  has  already  nearly 
reached  the  limit,  and  for  what?  Not  for  roads  or  bridges,  the 
crying  need  of  the  country  but  for  court  trials,  for  the  trials  of 
crime,  crime  that  has  its  origin  in  the  saloon,  in  the  drunken- 
.ness,  idleness,  poverty  and  political  degradation  that  they  cause, 


PROHIBITION  63 

saloons  built  for  the  so-called  "lumber  jack"  and  "miner." 
"They  will  spend  their  money  anyway,"  'tis  said,  "so  it  don't 
matter."  But  it  has  mattered  in  that  the  men  who  have  tried 
to  make  an  honest  living,  to  make  their  homes  here,  and  to 
build  up  the  country  are  now  having  to  pay  over  $20,000  a 
year  in  taxes  in  a  single  county  for  criminal  courts,  poor  houses, 
and  the  burial  of  paupers. 

That  tax  is  needed  for  the  building  of  roads  and  schools, 
for  the  development  of  the  country. 

Remove  the  liquor  traffic  and  it  may  be  so  used. 

If  the  only  effects  of  the  saloon  were  in  an  increased  tax  it 
might  be  borne,  but  this  is  only  secondary  to  the  waste  of  time 
and  industry  it  causes,  to  the  able-bodied  men  who  cease  steady 
employment  and  become  saloon-loafers  and  tramps,  worthless 
to  themselves,  a  disgrace  to  their  family,  and  a  burden  to  the 
public. 

You  see  that  man  in  the  gutter  and  you  scorn  him  a  worthless 
drunkard,  yet  that  man  a  few  years  ago  was  on  a  farm — a 
producer — a  benefit  to  the  whole  community,  but  through  drink 
he  has  become  what  he  is.  You  may  put  him  in  jail  at  the 
expense  of  the  taxpayers  but  if  that  saloon  had  not  been  there 
that  man  would  have  been  an  industrious  citizen. 

We  tolerate  the  saloon  for  the  miserable  license  it  pays, 
believing  it  a  source  of  revenue,  but  no  saloon  has  ever  yet 
created  one  dollars,  but  that  man  the  saloon  made  a  drunkard 
and  a  pauper  was  a  producer.  His  labor  might  have  cleared 
up  a  farm  from  which  more  of  the  necessities  of  life  could  have 
been  produced.  Had  his  money  not  been  spent  in  the  saloon  it 
would  have  been  expended  for  a  better  home,  for  farm 
machinery,  for  merchandise. 

Who  will  say  that  such  a  man  is  not  worth  more  to  a  com- 
munity than  the  $500  license  the  saloon  buys  its  existence  with? 
But  every  saloon  in  northeastern  Minnesota  is  the  ruination  of 
more  than  one  man  every  year. 

That  miner,  had  he  not  been  thrown  in  contact  with  the 
saloon  would  have  saved  his  money  and  in  a  few  years  bought 
a  farm.  He  Would  have  become  a  producer,  and  his  labor  on 
the  farm  would  result  hi  cheaper  and  better  farm  products  for 
the  people  in  town. 

But  you  saw  only  the  license  money  from  the  saloon  as  being 
helpful  to  the  town  and  you  allowed  the  saloon  to  poison  and 


64  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

rob  him.  You  got  part  of  his  money  through  the  license  it  is 
true,  but  you  will  pay  it  back  twice  over  in  the  results  that 
will  follow;  the  results  of  a  depraved  man — robbery,  murder, 
court  trials,  a  burdensome  tax  for  the  conviction  of  criminals 
instead  of  for  the  upbuilding  of  the  country. 

The  saloons  and  their  followers  have  had  their  way.  They 
have  filled  the  jails  and  poor  houses  and  the  potter's  fields, 
and  placed  an  indebtedness  on  many  sections  of  the  country 
that  will  take  years  to  remove. 

The  man  in  the  lumber  business  did  not  need  to  care.  He 
could  leave  the  country  when  the  trees  were  down,  but  the 
farmer  is  here  to  stay. 

The  farmer's  business  is  one  in  which  the  home  and  family 
constitute  the  foundation.  The  saloon  more  than  all  other  evils 
combined  is  most  disastrous  to  the  home. 

That  farm  woman  waiting  there  on  the  street  corner,  with 
faded  clothes  and  a  care-worn  face,  and  toil-worn  hands  repre- 
sents a  home  that  knows  the  blighting  influence  of  the  saloon. 

"When,"  she  asked,  "are  the  saloons  to  be  removed  from  this 
town?  I  heard  that  they  were  going  to  be.  The  timber 
we  once  had  on  the  farm  and  that  might  have  made  ois  com- 
fortable my  husband  spent  for  liquor,  and  now  he  is  spending 
what  little  we  can  make  on  the  farm  and  I  don't  know  what 
to  do." 

That  same  cry  is  in  the  hearts  of  hundreds  of  farm  women 
who  came  here  to  the  wilderness  and  have  borne  its  privations 
and  hardships  and  loneliness  and  year  by  year  their  hopes  have 
died  until  they  "don't  know  what  to  do." 

God  forbid  that  this  state  of  affairs  should  longer  exist. 

The  saloon  stands  in  the  way  of  progressive  farming — by 
poisoning  the  farmer  who  drinks,  and  by  breaking  the  heart  of 
his  family,  by  robbing  the  farmer  who  doesn't  drink  through 
taxation  for  crime  and  poverty  and  in  degrading  the  working 
men  of  the  woods  and  mines  who  otherwise  would  seek  homes 
on  the  land  through  their  earnings  and  become  useful  citizens. 

The  saloons  must  go  if  northeastern  Minnesota  is  to  become 
the  prosperous  farming  section  that  its  rich  resources  entitle  it 
to  be. 


PROHIBITION  65 

Commoner.  15:6-7.  May,  1915. 
The  Case  Against  Alcohol.    William  Jennings  Bryan 

This  is  the  second  central  meeting  in  the  interest  of  total 
abstinence  held  under  the  auspices  of  the  National  Abstainers 
Union,  the  first  being  at  Philadelphia  on  the  I5th  of  March  last. 
The  organization  is  non-partisan  and  non-sectarian,  its  purpose 
being  to  bring  all  of  the  people  of  our  country*  without  regard  to 
politics,  church,  or  race,  into  active  cooperation  in  behalf  of 
temperance. 

Before  presenting  arguments  in  favor  of  total  abstinence  I 
ask  your  attention  to  certain  figures  and  comparisons  which  will 
show  the  enormous  amount  expended  in  the  United  States  for 
intoxicating  liquors  and  therefore  the  great  importance  of  the 
subject  with  which  we  are  dealing. 

As  the  body  becomes  insensible  to  pain  when  a  certain  degree 
is  reached,  so  the  mind  ceases  to  comprehend  the  meaning  of 
figures  beyond  a  certain  point  A  thousand  million,  for  instance, 
does  not  seem  to  us  much  more  than  a  hundred  million  or  even 
a  million.  I  have  tried,  therefore,  to  translate  into  every  day 
language  the  figures  that  set  forth  the  cost  of  intemperance. 

At  Philadelphia  I  used  four  comparisons,  based  upon  an  ex- 
penditure of  the  sum  of  two  and  a  half  billions  of  dollars  a  year 
— that  is,  an  average  of  $25  per  capita  or  $125  per  family.  The 
comparisons  then  used  showed  (i)  that  there  is  daily  spent  for 
drink  in  the  United  States  one-tenth  of  the  sum  expended  for  the 
carrying  on  the  war  now  raging  in  Europe ;  (2)  that  the  amount 
expended  for  drink  in  the  United  States  would  build  six  Panama 
canals  each  year;  (3)  that  the  amount  annually  spent  for  drink 
is  more  than  three  times  the  entire  amount  spent  for  education  in 
the  United  States;  and  (4)  that  the  amount  spent  for  drink  is 
almost  double  the  annual  expenditures  of  the  federal  government. 

I  shall  tonight  present  four  other  comparisons  which  cannot 
fail  to  impress  you  with  the  heavy-  burden  that  the  use  of  intox- 
icating liquor  throws  upon  our  population. 

First:  According  to  the  statistics  compiled  by  the  depart- 
ment of  commerce,  the  value  of  three  of  the  great  agricultural 
crops,  on  the  first  of  December,  1914,  was  as  follows:  Cotton, 
$520,000,000;  wheat,  $878,000,000;  corn,  $1,700,000,000.  (These 
crops  vary  in  value  from  year  to  year;  in  1913  the  cotton  crop 
was  worth  $825,000,000  and  the  wheat  crop  only  $610,000,000;  I 
have  used  the  last  year.) 


66  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

Consider  the  land  employed  in  the  raising  of  cotton,  the 
amount  of  labor  required  and  the  number  of  persons  interested, 
and  then  remember  that  we  spend  for  liquor,  each  year,  more 
than  four  cotton  crops.  Survey  the  broad  wheat  fields  of  our 
land,  estimate  the  number  of  persons  engaged  in  the  production 
of  this  staple  of  life,  and  then  remember  that  we  expend  almost 
three  wheat  crops  a  year  for  intoxicating  liquors.  Corn  is  grown 
in  every  state  and  is  the  largest  single  source  of  wealth;  it  yields 
more  than  the  wheat  and  cotton  crops  combined,  and  yet  we  an- 
nually spend  for  liquor  nearly  50  per  cent  more  than  the  value 
of  the  entire  corn  crop. 

Statistics  show  that  268,000  manufacturing  establishments  in 
this  country  employ  over  6,500,000  wage  earners,  and  that  these 
wage  earners  add  $8,500,000,000  to  the  value  of  the  material  used 
in  industries  in  which  they  are  employed.  They  do  not  receive 
that  sum  in  wages,  but  they  create  that  amount  of  wealth.  It 
gives  some  idea  of  the  amount  spent  for  liquor  to  know  that 
during  the  year  we  spend  for  drink  more  than  one-fourth  as 
much  as  these  6,500,000  wage  earners  produce.  Would  not 
national  prosperity  be  largely  increased  if  the  amount  spent  for 
drink  was  expended  for  food  and  clothing  and  homes? 

Second:  As  we  are  all  interested  in  good  roads  I  have  made 
a  computation  to  ascertain  how  far  that  amount  spent  for  liquor 
would  go  toward  the  building  of  good  roads  in  the  United  States. 
I  find  that  the  average  cost  of  a  macadam  road,  16  feet  wide  and 
7  inches  thick,  is  about  $6,500  per  mile.  This  is  the  estimate 
furnished  by  the  office  of  public  roads  in  the  department  of  agri- 
culture; but  to  be  sure  that  we  are  liberal  in  our  estimate,  let  us 
put  it  at  $8,333  per  mile — or  three  miles  for  $25,000.  This  enables 
us  to  make  our  computation  in  round  numbers.  If  $25,000  will 
build  three  miles  of  macadam  road,  then  $2,500,000,000  will  build 
300,000  miles.  If  we  count  the  distance  from  ocean  to  ocean  at 
3,000  miles,  the  annual  amount  spent  for  drink  would  build  100 
macadam  highways  across  the  continent ;  and  these,  counting  the 
width  of  the  country  north  and  south  at  1,200  miles,  would  give 
us  a  highway  every  12  miles.  If,  the  second  year,  we  built 
300,000  miles  of  highways  running  north  and  south  we  could,  in 
two  years  have  the  United  States  gridironed  with  macadam  roads 
12  miles  apart  so  that  every  citizen  would  be  within  6  miles 
of  a  good  road,  which  would  put  him  into  communication  with 
every  other  part  of  the  union.  In  less  than  eight  years  time  every 


PROHIBITION  67 

mile  of  public  road  in  the  United  States  could  be  macadamized 
with  the  amount  spent  for  alcoholic  liquors.  The  amount  now 
expended  in  paving  the  road  to  perdition  would,  if  spent  for  good 
roads,  soon  lift  the  mud  embargo  from  the  entire  country.  Cal- 
culate, if  you  will,  the  change  that  would  follow  the  investment  of 
the  nation's  drink  money  in  paved  highways — the  increase  in  com- 
fort to  the  farmer  and  his  family — the  increased  attractiveness 
of  country  life,  and  the  commercial  value  of  these  good  roads  to 
the  towns  and  cities  of  the  land. 

Now  let  us  proceed  to  the  third  comparison :  According  to  the 
statistics  furnished  by  the  interstate  commerce  commission  the 
railroads  pay  out  each  year  to  their  employees  $1,373,422472 — or 
only  a  little  more  than  one-half  the  amount  expended  for  alco- 
holic liquor.  Take  a  railroad  map  of  the  United  States,  trace  the 
lines  east  and  west,  north  and  south,  and  the  diagonal  lines,  and 
then  estimate  the  number  of  men  required  to  operate  them — the 
engineers  who  keep  faithful  vigil  while  the  passengers  sleep — the 
conductors  who,  ever  alert,  direct  the  trains — the  men  who,  at  the 
switch,  on  the  road  and  in  the  stations,  are  required  for  the  traffic, 
passenger  and  freight — this  great  army  receives  for  this  work, 
indispensable  to  the  nation's  prosperity,  but  a  little  more  than 
one-half  of  die  amount  that  is  paid  for  the  drink  which  unfits 
men  for  any  responsible  position. 

The  railroads  of  the  country  are  capitalized  at  $20^247,301,257, 
of  which  $8,680,759,704  represents  capital  stock,  and  $11,566,341,553 
represents  bonded  indebtedness.  A  considerable  portion  of  this 
capitalization  is  water  and  does  not  represent  actual  value;  the 
commission  is  now  at  work  collecting  information  as  to  the  physi- 
cal value  of  these  roads,  and  we  shall  know  in  a  few  years  what 
it  would  cost  to  reproduce  them,  but,  taking  them  at  their  book 
value,  it  would  only  require  eight  years  to  duplicate  these  rail- 
roads if  the  annual  amount  spent  for  liquor  was  devoted  to  rail- 
road building.  Does  not  this  comparison  give  you  some  idea  of 
the  importance  of  the  liquor  question  to  the  nation? 

Fourth:  As  New  York  is  the  financial  center  of  the  country 
and  is  destined  to  be  the  clearing  house  of  the  world,  you  may  be 
more  interested  in  the  fourth  comparison:  The  statistics  com- 
piled by  the  treasury  department  show  that  there  are  7,581 
national  banks  in  the  United  States  with  a  capital  stock  oi 
$1,065,951,505,  and  a  surplus  of  $726,935,755— or  a  total  capital  and 
a  surplus  of  a  little  less  than  $1,800,000,000.  Is  it  not  apalling  to 


68  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

think  that  the  amount  spent  for  drink  each  year  would  duplicate 
all  the  national  banks  in  the  country,  supply  them  with  their 
present  capital  and  surplus  and  then  leave  a  balance  of 
$700,000,000  to  be  invested  in  other  ways? 

There  are  in  the  United  States  19,240  banks  other  than 
national — that  is,  state  and  private  banks — having  a  total  capital- 
ization of  $1,073,881,738,  and  a  total  surplus  of  $991,147,876;  or  a 
total  of  capital  and  surplus  of  a  little  less  than  $2,100,000,000. 
The  amount  spent  for  liquor  each  year  would  furnish  the  capital 
and  surplus  for  these  more  than  nineteen  thousand  banks,  and 
leave  a  balance  of  $400,000,000. 

In  other  words,  the  amount  now  spent  annually  for  drink 
would  in  two  years  duplicate  all  the  banks  of  the  country,  state 
and  national,  furnish  them  with  capital  and  surplus  equal  to  that 
which  they  now  have,  and  leave  $1,000,000,000  for  other  invest- 
ments. Is  it  not  worth  while  to  give  some  attention  to  the  liquor 
question?  Imagine,  if  you  can,  the  effect  upon  the  home  life  of 
the  country  if  the  amount  invested  in  drink  were  invested  in  bank 
stock,  and  what  do  you  think  would  be  the  effect  upon  business 
if  the  capital  and  surplus  of  the  banks  were  doubled  in  two  years? 

If  I  may  now  assume  that  you  are  sufficiently  impressed  with 
the  magnitude  of  the  evils  of  intemperance  we  may  proceed  to  a 
discussion  of  remedies.  When  we  come  to  consider  the  liquor 
question  we  find  that  the  remedies  proposed  follow  one  of  two 
lines — namely,  moral  suasion  and  legislation.  All  who  labor  in 
the  cause  of  temperance  seek  to  lessen  the  use  of  intoxicating 
liquor — some  by  persuading  people  not  to  drink,  some  by  urging 
laws  which  will  prevent  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  liquor,  while 
still  others  divide  their  energies  between  the  two  lines  of  work. 
As  for  myself,  while  I  have  definite  views  as  to  the  means  that 
should  be  employed  for  solving  the  legislative  problem  presented 
by  the  liquor  traffic,  I  shall  confine  myself  tonight  to  the  first  line 
of  argument,  and  appeal  to  those  present,  and  to  those  whom  I 
may  reach  through  the  press,  to  take  their  position  as  individuals 
on  the  side  of  total  abstinence ;  for  whatever  difference  of  opin- 
ion may  exist  as  to  the  relative  merits  of  different  legislative 
remedies,  no  one  will  deny  that  the  total  abstainer,  to  the  extent 
of  his  influence,  lessens  the  use  of  alcohol,  and  by  so  doing  both 
reduces  the  evils  of  intemperance  and  lightens  the  task  of  the 
legislator. 


PROHIBITION  69 

Why  should  the  individual  abstain  entirely  from  the  use  of 
intoxicating  liquor  as  a  beverage?  That  is  the  pledge  which  we 
urge  upon  each  and  alL  Why? 

First:  Because  both  experience  and  investigation  show  that 
no  advantage  of  any  kind — physical,  mental  or  moral — is  to  be 
gained  from  die  moderate  or  even  occasional  use  of  intoxi- 
cating liquor.  This  reason  ought  in  itself  to  be  sufficient,  for  the 
intelligent  man  demands  a  reason  before  he  undertakes  anything 
which  affects  his  own  welfare  or  his  relation  to  others.  If  it  can- 
not be  shown  that  the  use  of  alcoholic  liquors  is  beneficial,  then 
the  money  spent  upon  it  is  unwisely  spent,  for  man  cannot  afford 
to  waste  money  upon  that  which  does  him  no  good. 

Second:  But  the  case  against  alcohol  does  not,  however,  rest 
upon  negative  arguments.  The  use  of  alcohol  is  distinctly  and 
undeniably  harmful;  it  impairs  the  strength  of  the  body,  even 
when  taken  in  small  quantities;  it  injuriously  affects  the  mind 
and  it  undermines  the  morals.  Scientific  investigation  has  demon- 
strated beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt  that  alcohol  is  a  poison 
and  that  its  introduction  into  the  system  weakens  man's  power  to 
resist  disease,  and  reduces  his  capacity  for  intelligent  and  useful 
labor.  As  evidence,  I  cite  the  fact  that  its  use  is  prohibited  in 
schools  and  that  the  laws  of  every  state  provide  severe  penalties 
for  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquor  to  minors.  If,  by  common  con- 
sent, we  try  to  protect  the  young  man  from  the  use  of  alcohol 
until  he  is  twenty-one,  is  not  the  presumption  strongly  against  the 
use  of  alcohol  after  one  reaches  maturity?  This  presumption  is 
supported  by  the  laws  forbidding  the  sale  of  liquor  to  drunkards 
— laws  unanimously  supported  by  public  sentiment.  But  we  are 
not  left  to  presumption — proof  is  conclusive.  The  tables  of  mor- 
tality of  insurance  companies  show  that  the  use  of  intoxicating 
liquor  appreciably  shortens  life.  At  thirty  the  expectancy  of 
abstainers  is  three  years  and  eight  months  longer  than  the  expec- 
tancy of  the  non-abstainers — an  advantage  of  II  per  cent.  The 
man  who  drinks  commits  suicide  by  degrees — the  rapidity  of  his 
decline  being  proportioned  to  the  amount  of  alcohol  consumed, 
and  what  is  even  worse,  he  visits  his  sins  upon  future  generations 
— commits  a  crime  against  descendants,  those  who  are  both  inno- 
cent and  helpless. 

Drink  leads  to  idleness.  The  business  men  of  our  country  are 
year  by  year  drawing  the  line  more  strictly  against  the  use  of 


70  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

alcohol  by  employees.  Why?  Because  a  clear  brain  and  a  steady 
nerve  are  required  in  every  important  avenue  of  industry,  and 
alcohol  befuddles  the  brain  and  paralyzes  the  nerves. 

No  employer  cares  to  put  business  in  the  hands  of  a  tippler; 
the  man  who  drinks  cannot  safely  be  trusted  with  the  care  of 
life  or  property.  Read  the  advertisement  in  the  want  columns. 
Did  you  ever  see  an  item  like  this :  "Wanted — A  good  moderate 
drinker  for  a  responsible  position."  No  saloon-keeper  would 
stand  sponsor  for  such  an  advertisement,  for  total  abstinence  is 
a  virtue  even  behind  the  bar. 

There  has  been  a  growing  disposition  in  this  country  and 
throughout  the  world,  to  emphasize  the  evils  of  strong  drink,  but 
even  the  most  enthusiastic  advocates  of  temperance  have  been 
surprised  at  the  ghastly  light  which  the  war  in  Europe  has  thrown 
upon  the  subject.  It  has  been  found  that  patriotism — patriotism, 
that  compelling  force  which  throughout  the  ages  has  led  men  to 
offer  their  lives  for  their  country —  is  no  match  for  the  appetite 
which  alcohol  cultivates  in  its  victims.  Loyalty  to  Bacchus,  Gam- 
brinus  and  Barleycorn,  is  greater  than  loyalty  to  king  or  kaiser 
or  czar.  The  use  of  drink  has  been  found  to  be  so  destructive 
of  efficiency,  that  the  belligerent  governments,  not  on  moral 
grounds,  but  purely  on  economic  grounds,  have  been  compelled 
to  resort  to  restrictive  measures.  The  aeroplane  that  drops  its 
bomb  from  above  and  the  submarine  which  shoots  its  torpedo 
from  below  are  less  to  be  feared  than  the  schooner  that  crosses 
the  bar. 

But  why  talk  of  the  moderate  use  of  alcoholic  drinks?  There 
is  no  fixed  line  at  which  drinking  ceases  to  be  moderate  and  be- 
comes excessive.  Every  victim  of  the  habit  has  sought  for  this 
line,  but  he  has  sought  in  vain ;  like  the  horizon,  it  recedes  from 
him  as  he  advances  until  it  finally  disappears  in  the  starless  night 
of  drunkenness.  No  one  begins  to  drink  with  the  expectation  of 
yielding  to  the  appetite ;  most  of  the  men  who  have  been  wrecked 
by  alcohol  have  had  their  period  of  boasting  when  they  pro- 
claimed their  ability  to  drink  or  leave  it  alone  at  will.  It  is  not 
safe  to  trifle  with  disease,  and  drinking  becomes  a  disease  as  soon 
as  the  use  of  it  has  caused  a  craving  for  it.  No  age  is  immune 
from  the  appetite  for  alcohol.  It  fastens  itself  as  readily  upon 
those  of  advanced  years  as  upon  those  in  youth  or  in  middle  life. 
A  physician  recently  told  me  of  a  case  in  which  a  man  took  his 
first  taste  of  whisky  when  he  was  above  seventy,  and  was  never 


PROHIBITION  71 

sober  again  during  the  remaining  four  years  of  his  life.  Who 
can  defend  the  taking  of  such  risks  as  those  involved  in  the 
use  of  intoxicating  liquor?  All  history,  sacred  and  profane, 
warns  us  against  the  worship  of  the  bleer-eyed  god. 

"Look  not  thou  upon  the  wine  when  it  is  red}  when  it  giveth 
its  color  in  the  cup,  when  it  moveth  itself  aright. 

"At  the  last  it  biteth  like  a  serpent,  and  stingeth  like  an  adder." 

This  is  the  admonition  of  Solomon.  Alcohol  still  bites  it 
still  stings.  Surely  it  is  the  part  of  wisdom  to  "touch  not,  taste 
not,  and  handle  not"  a  thing  which,  even  when  used  sparingly 
causes  an  appreciable  loss  in  health,  in  strength,  and  in  service; 
which,  when  used  in  so-called  moderation,  causes  wretchedness, 
cruelty  and  crime,  and  which  finds  its  culmination  in  delirium 
tremens,  the  most  terrorizing  experience  through  which  a  human 
being  can  pass. 

But  I  am  not  willing  to  rest  the  case  in  favor  of  total  absti- 
nence entirely  upon  the  ground  that  one  who  uses  alcohol  brings 
danger  upon  himself.  That  argument,  while  it  should  be  sufficient 
to  deter  the  prudent  man,  has  in  it  an  element  of  selfishness. 
While  one  is  justified  in  abstaining  from  that  which  would  re- 
duce his  physical  and  mental  capacity  below  the  maximum,  he 
cannot  ignore  the  effect  which  his  conduct  has  upon  others,  and 
no  one  in  this  land  and  age  can  be  ignorant  of  the  suffering  and 
injustice  which  alcohol  has  brought  into  the  home.  In  cases 
innumerable  the  husband  has  been  converted  into  a  beast,  and 
the  burden  of  supporting  the  family  has  been  thrown  upon  the 
wife.  In  cases  without  number  drink  has  robbed  the  children  of 
the  guardianship  of  a  father,  sometimes  even  of  the  affectionate 
care  of  a  mother,  made  the  coming  of  the  parent  a  cause  of 
alarm,  and  changed  the  smile  of  welcome  into  an  expression  of 
fear.  Neither  can  we  forget  the  burden  that  drink  throws  upon 
society,  first,  in  decreasing  the  productive  power  of  wage  earners 
and,  second,  in  imposing  a  pecuniary  burden  upon  all  for  the 
care  of  those  who,  through  the  use  of  liquor,  have  been  brought 
to  the  poorhouse  or  to  the  penitentiary. 

But  there  is  another  argument  the  force  of  which  I  feel  sure 
this  audience  will  appreciate,  namely,  man's  responsibility  for  the 
example  which  he  sets  to  others.  If  one  uses  intoxicating  liquor 
himself  he  cannot  well  advise  others  against  it;  at  least,  he  is 
not  apt  to  do  so,  for  the  consciousness  of  inconsistency  puts  a 
restraint  upon  his  tongue. 


72  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

The  signing  of  the  pledge  is  the  outward  evidence  of  an 
inward  resolve  which  everyone  must  take  who  has  reached  the 
decision  not  to  drink.  If  you  do  not  intend  to  use  liquor,  why 
not  let  your  determination  help  others  as  well  as  yourself?  Each 
individual  has  an  influence  and  that  influence  is  on  one  side  of 
the  line  or  the  other.  If  one  drinks,  his  influence  is  necessarily  on 
the  side  of  drinking;  if  he  does  not  drink,  his  influence  is  on  the 
side  of  total  abstinence.  Surely  the  appetite  for  intoxicants  must 
be  strong  indeed  if  it  can  overcome  the  natural  desire  of  every 
good  citizen  to  contribute  his  mite  to  so  righteous  a  cause.  In 
several  of  the  belligerent  nations  the  sovereign  has  announced  his 
abstinence  from  the  use  of  liquor  in  order  that  his  example  may 
encourage  his  subjects  to  abstain;  in  this  land,  where  every  citizen 
is  a  sovereign,  why  should  the  individual  be  less  concerned  about 
the  influence  of  his  example. 

The  world  is  aroused  to  the  menace  of  alcohol — war  has  been 
declared  against  it  in  every  civilized  land  and  there  is  no  neutral 
ground.  I  call  you  to  the  colors — to  the  standard  raised  by  the 
National  Abstainers  Union  for  "Health  and  Home  and  Human- 
ity," Rise!  Let  us  pledge  our  support  to  the  cause  in  water — in 
water,  the  daily  need  of  every  living  thing.  It  ascends  from  the 
seas,  obedient  to  the  summons  of  the  sun,  and  descending,  show- 
ers blessings  upon  the  earth ;  it  gives  of  its  sparkling  beauty  to  the 
fragrant  flowers;  its  alchemy  transmutes  base  clay  into  golden 
grain ;  it  is  the  canvas  upon  which  the  finger  of  the  infinite  traces 
the  radiant  bow  of  promise.  It  is  the  drink  that  refreshes  and 
adds  no  sorrow  with  it — Jehovah  looked  upon  it  at  Creation's 
dawn  and  said — "It  is  good." 

Pittsburgh   Dispatch.     September   21,   1914 
Prohibition  in  West  Virginia.     Fred  O.  Blue 

That  more  real  prosperity  has  come  to  the  masses  of  West 
Virginia  since  it  became  a  dry  state  July  i,  than  was  ever 
experienced  by  the  state  before,  was  the  argument  of  Fred  O. 
Blue,  prohibition  commissioner  of  West  Virginia,  in  an  address 
at  Memorial  Hall,  Sunday  afternoon. 

The  first  time  West  Virginia  voted  on  the  wet  and  dry 
question  was  in  1888,  when  only  three  counties  voted  dry.  In 
1912  only  three  counnties  voted  wet,  and,  although  the  state  had 


PROHIBITION  73 

doubled  in  population  in  the  meantime,  there  were  3,000  less 
wet  votes  in  the  state  than  in  1888.  "This,"  said  Mr.  Blue, 
"was  due  to  education.  Effects  of  alcohol  has  been  taught  in 
the  schools  of  the  state  since  1888." 

"The  first  thing  we  did  after  the  amendment  had  carried," 
he  said,  "was  to  pass  a  real  prohibition  law.  One  of  the  wets 
described  it  as  having  horns.  We  did  away  with  the  clubs  and 
we  did  away  with  the  drug  stores.  No  physician  in  West  Vir- 
ginia can  give  you  a  prescription  for  wine  or  whisky.  They 
say  you  can't  enforce  it  I  want  to  say  that  you  can.  Our 
police  courts  are  practically  idle.  Last  week,  for  the  first  time 
in  the  history  of  the  state,  a  grand  jury  adjourned  without 
finding  a  single  offense  worthy  of  indictment 

"I  want  to  say  that  Prohibition  has  not  hurt  business.  Wheel- 
ing, which  was  the  wettest  town  in  the  state,  has  turned  her 
brewery  into  a  packing  house,  and  it  employs  three  times  as 
many  men  as  it  did.  In  Charleston  the  brewery  has  become  an 
ice  plant,  and  we  are  to  have  cheaper  ice,  so  that  the  poor  of  the 
city  can  afford  it  In  Wheeling,  where  there  were  fourteen 
saloons  in  one  block,  every  place  has  been  rented  to  another 
form  of  industry;  some  at  advanced  rents.  A  shoe  dealer 
located  in  that  block  writes  that  his  business  has  increased  35 
per  cent  since  the  city  has  been  dry,  over  a  corresponding 
period  when  it  was  wet" 


Commoner.    15:3.    May,   1915 
The  Question  of  Compensation.    William  Jennings  Bryan 

Now  that  the  liquor  interests  are  threatened  with  the  an- 
nihilation of  their  business  we  hear  again  the  argument  that 
they  should  be  compensated  for  any  loss  they  may  suffer  as  a 
result  of  laws  prohibiting  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  liquor. 
If  this  came  in  the  form  of  a  proposition,  submitted  by  the 
liquor  interests  in  return  for  the  voluntary  abandonment  of  their 
business,  it  would  be  more  worthy  of  consideration,  but  it  is  not 
presented  as  .a  basis  of  agreement  and  an  offer  to  buy  them 
out  would  not  change  the  attitude  of  the  representatives  of  the 
liquor  interests.  If  they  could  by  any  means  force  the  adoption 
of  a  provision  compelling  the  public  to  compensate  those  driven 
out  of  business  they  would  fight  Prohibition  just  the  same,  and 


74  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

such  concessions  to  them,  being  manifestly  unjust,  would  simply 
alienate  the  friends  of  Prohibition  without  winning  support  from 
its  enemies. 

And  why  should  the  matter  of  compensation  be  considered? 
Is  any  liquor  dealer  ignorant  of  the  character  of  the  business? 
Does  he  not  know  that  the  liquor  business  is  in  a  class  by 
itself?  Is  he  not  compelled  to  secure  a  license  before  he  can 
open  his  place  of  business,  and  has  he  not  observed  the 
tendency  toward  increasing  taxes  upon  his  business?  Is  he 
not  required  to  observe  laws  forbidding  the  sale  of  liquor  to 
drunkards  and  to  minors?  Does  he  not  have  to  give  bond  for 
the  payment  of  damages  caused?  Is  he  not  liable  to  suit  at  the 
hands  of  those  who  are  injured  by  his  business?  Does  he  not 
see  daily  the  ruin  that  liquor  causes  and  does  he  not,  therefore, 
engage  in  the  business  with  a  full  knowledge  of  the  harm  that 
it  works  to  his  fellow  men?  Being  under  no  compulsion  to  go 
into  the  business,  and  being  free  to  retire  from  it  at  any  time, 
he  cannot  ask  immunity  from  the  effects  of  legislation  which 
the  evils  incident  to  his  business  compel. 

If  any  attempt  were  made  to  collect  from  society  a  sum 
sufficient  to  compensate  the  brewer,  the  distiller  or  the  saloon- 
keeper for  loss  due  to  the  enactment  of  prohibitory  laws  a 
multitude  of  voices  would  answer  "No!"  The  public  has 
already  paid  an  enormous  penalty  for  permitting  the  business  to 
exist  so  long.  Why  should  society  insure  the  liquor  dealer 
against  loss  when  the  liquor  dealer  has  been  so  indifferent  to 
the  loss  that  he  inflicts  upon  society,  individually  and  as  a  whole  ? 
How  many  husbands  have  been  converted  into  brutes  by  the 
use  of  liquor?  Do  those  who  sell  the  stuff  offer  to  restore  the 
husbands  whom  they  have  ruined  ?  How  many  homes  have  been 
made  desolate?  Have  those  who  caused  this  desolation  had  any 
thought  of  making  restoration?  How  many  young  men  have 
been  dragged  down  to  destruction  by  rum?  Do  the  brewers, 
the  distillers  and  the  saloon-keepers  offer  to  compensate  the 
mothers  for  the  loss  of  sons — could  they  do  so  even  if  they 
desired?  What  is  a  young  man  worth?  What  price  can  be  put 
upon  the  possibilities  of  a  human  life  or  upon  an  immortal  soul? 

Have  the  liquor  dealers  any  intention  of  repairing  the  wrong 
they  have  done  to  government  and  to  our  institutions  by  the 
methods  they  have  employed  to  prolong  their  reign  of  law- 
lessness ? 


PROHIBITION  75 

He  who  comes  into  a  court  of  equity  must  come  with  clean 
hands — look  at  the  hands  of  those  who  handle  alcohol!  Is  it 
necessary  to  purchase  the  burglar's  kit  of  tools  before  putting 
him  out  of  business?  It  would  be  scarcely  less  absurd  to  talk 
of  allowing  the  saloon  to  run  until  the  people  are  ready  to  tax 
themselves  to  make  good  this  investment  in  sin  and  crime. 
From  the  time  a  majority  of  the  members  of  Congress  voted  for 
national  Prohibition  the  saloon  business  has  been  an  outlaw — 
it  was  a  criminal  before.  Those  who  have  invested  in  it  can 
get  out  of  it  as  best  they  can  and  as  soon  as  they  can.  Such 
loss  as  the  business  may  suffer  will  fall  heaviest  on  those  who 
are  either  too  blind  to  see  the  trend  of  public  sentiment,  or  too 
indifferent  to  heed  the  signs  of  the  times. 

Vindicator.   April  30,  1915 
Compensation 

Somebody  is  securing  a  wide  publication  for  an  article  advo- 
cating compensation  of  liquor  interests  in  event  of  Prohibition, 
or,  more  properly,  opposing  Prohibition  upon  the  ground  that  it 
does  not  provide  for  compensation.  The  article  ends  with  the 
following  sentences: 

Our  forefathers  in  1773  declared  that  "taxation  without  representation 
is  tyranny."  In  1915  what  term  shall  we  apply  to  "confiscation  without 


It  would  be  rather  difficult  to  see  how  the  two  ideas  ex- 
pressed in  these  sentences  have  any  relation  to  each  other.  The 
writer  of  the  article  in  question  might  have  used  almost  any 
other  sentiment  famous  in  American  history  to  introduce  his 
compensation  idea.  But,  however  the  question  gets  before  us, 
what  of  it? 

Readers  of  the  Vindicator  know  that  this  paper  has  not  been 
hostile  to  the  compensation  idea.  On  Ac  contrary  we  have 
believed  that,  although  there  is  no  legal  claim  which  the  liquor 
interests  can  urge  because  of  which  they  should  be  compensated 
for  the  loss  .which  they  will  suffer  by  Prohibition,  although  the 
character  of  the  business  which  they  have  conducted  and  the 
style  of  opposition  to  reform  with  which  they  have  sought  to 
continue  their  business  have  been  such  as  to  properly  arouse 
indignation,  if  the  liquor  makers  and  dealers  would  sell  out, 


76  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

it  would  be  better  and  cheaper  for  the  people  to  buy  out  the 
liquor  business  than  to  fight  through  a  fight  that  perhaps  must 
go  on  for  years  and  leave  roots  of  bitterness  to  rankle  in  our 
national  life  for  generations.  In  taking  this  position  we  stand 
exactly  where  Mr.  Lincoln  stood  in  regard  to  the  slavery  ques- 
tion. But  when  the  liquor  advocates  talk  about  "confiscation" 
as  a  basis  for  compensation  they  are  entirely  in  error.  The 
Prohibition  of  the  liquor  traffic  is  not  confiscation  of  anything. 

It  is  not  confiscation  because  no  property  is  taken  from 
anybody.  On  the  morning  after  the  going  in  force  of  a  Pro- 
hibition law,  every  liquor  dealer  and  maker  will  wake  up  in 
the  peaceful  possession  of  every  piece  of  property  which  he  now 
possesses  and  every  dollar  which  he  now  has,  no  matter  how 
illy  gotten,  with  full  lawful  right  to  use  them  in  any  lawful 
enterprise.  The  only  thing  of  which  he  will  have  been  deprived 
is  a  privilege  which  he  has  been  enjoying  for  a  longer  or  shorter 
time  but  which,  by  the  very  terms  of  its  granting,  was  always 
merely  a  privilege  to  be  terminated  or  renewed  at  the  pleasure 
of  the  grantor. 

A  second  consideration  is  the  fact  that  even  possession  of 
the  property  in  this  country  is  conditioned  upon  the  proper  use 
of  property.  The  man  who  makes  use  of  his  property  in  such 
fashion  as  to  do  damage  to  his  fellow  citizens,  by  such  use  of 
it,  ceases  to  have  property  rights  in  it.  In  the  light  of  that  fact, 
even  the  taking  away  of  the  liquor  dealer's  property  which  has 
been  used  to  public  damages  call  it  confiscation  or  what  you 
please,  would  be  an  act  for  which  no  compensation  could  be 
demanded. 

It  is  not  necessary  here  to  cite  the  long  array  of  judicial 
decisions,  covering  the  highest  courts  of  the  land  for  a  period 
of  more  than  fifty  years,  in  confirmation  of  these  statements. 

As  a  practical  suggestion,  we  beg  to  say  to  the  gentlemen 
who  represent  the  liquor  interests  that  they  can  vastly  improve 
their  presentation  of  the  compensation  idea.  There  is,  even  yet, 
some  slight  possibility  that  the  American  people  might  be  per- 
suaded to  do  more  than  justice  to  the  liquor  makers  and 
dealers,  but  the  temper  of  the  American  people  is  already  pretty 
thoroughly  tried  by  the  long  continued  lawless  opposition  of 
the  liquor  traffic  to  the  people's  will.  Nothing  will  be  gained 
by  hurling  the  idea  of  compensation  as  a  weapon  against  Pro- 
hibition; a  frank  offer  to  surrender,  with  a  plea  for  mercy, 


PROHIBITION  77 

might  meet  response,  but  the  time  for  even  that  is  perilously 
short 

There  is  a  "confiscation''  that  is  possible.  It  is  a  thinkable 
thing  that  the  American  people  win  be  driven,  not  only  to  abolish 
the  liquor  traffic,  but  to  take  away  die  vast  fortunes  that  have 
been  piled  up  from  its  ill-gotten  and  bloody  gains.  Following 
their  present  course,  the  liquor  makers  and  liquor  dealers  are 


California  Official 
Argument  in  Favor  of  Prohibition,  1914.    Samuel  W.  Odefl. 

This  amendment  is  proposed  by  initiative  petition  procured  by 
the  California  "Dry"  Federation,  a  non-partisan  organization. 

Voters  should  enact  it  for  every  reason.  License  or  other 
laws  regulating  die  liquor  traffic  do  not  lessen  drunkenness  or  the 
quantity  of  liquor  consumed,  but  do  make  those  who  vote  for 
them  responsible  for  evU  results. 

The  enormous  consumption  of  liquors,  resulting  in  sickness, 
idiocy,  insanity,  crime,  profligacy  and  death,  puts  die  issue 
squarely  before  our  race  to  go  "dry"  or  die.  Science  proves  that 
habitual,  moderate  drinking  is  as  bad  as  periodical  drunkenness. 
Of  ninety-seven  children  observed  who  were  conceived  while 
parents  were  partially  intoxicated  only  fourteen  were  normal 
Life  insurance  tables  show  the  fife  expectancy  of  a  person  of 
20  years,  if  a  total  abstainer,  is  44  years,  if  a  moderate 
drinker,  31  years,  if  a  hard  drinker,  15  years.  Three  drinks  of 
liquor  daily  decrease  efficiency  5  to  8  per  cent.  Accidents  due  to 
alcohol  and  employers'  liability  laws  compel  employers  to  hire 
total  abstainers.  Healers,  physical,  spiritual  and  mental,  are  hin- 
dered by  alcoholic  conditions. 

Seven  hundred  and  seventy  lunatics  in  our  state  hospitals  in 
1912  were  registered  as  alcoholic  insane.  Half  die  remainder 
were  so  indirectly.  (See  Eighth  Report  State  Lunacy  Commis- 
sion.) It  cost  California  taxpayers  $1,469,667  to  maintain  these 
hospitals  in  1912,  and  $29,000,000  to  deal  with  alcoholic  crime. 
Liquor  costs  the  taxpayer  seven  dollars  for  every  dollar  received 
in  taxes  or  license  fees.  The  Fifteenth  Report,  Bureau  of  Labor, 
shows  our  courts  in  two  years  dealt  with  113,526  misdemeanors, 
of  which  66,930  were  "drunks"  and  20,000  more  were  kindled 


78  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

crimes  caused  indirectly  by  alcohol.  In  "wet"  towns  huge  police 
forces  and  many  courts  grind  daily  grists  of  crime;  in  "dry" 
towns  few  are  needed.  Other  states  show  like  conditions.  Kan- 
sas under  prohibitory  laws  has  many  counties  without  a  criminal 
in  jail  or  an  insane  person  in  hospital. 

Brothels  and  red-light  districts  are  part  of  the  liquor  traffic. 

This  amendment  will  help  business  and  relieve  poverty.  Let 
breweries  and  distilleries  be  turned  into  flour  mills.  Let  barley 
and  corn  be  turned  into  beef,  poultry  or  bread  instead  of  liquor. 
The  increased  supply  will  lessen  the  cost  of  living.  Let  wine 
grapes  worth  six  dollars  per  ton  be  substituted  by  table  grapes 
worth  thirty,  or  dried  or  turned  into  grape  juice  or  syrup.  Pro- 
fessor Bioletti  says  there  is  a  market  in  the  United  States  for 
ten  times  the  whole  product. 

Our  grapegrowers  admit  that  wine  grapes  have  been  unprofit- 
able, for  their  hope  for  future  profit  lies  in  the  immigration  of 
cheap  laborers  from  Europe  through  the  Panama  canal.  With 
pauper  labor  they  hope  to  profit.  (See  Vol.  II,  Bulletin  State 
Commission  of  Horticulture  for  1913.)  The  liquor  traffic  is  the 
confessed  enemy  of  American  labor.  Laboring  men  do  not  desire 
to  earn  bread  from  evil  business. 

Immigrants  from  Europe  are  generally  liquor  drinkers.  "Dry" 
the  state  and  turn  them  elsewhere. 

This  amendment  does  not  interfere  with  personal  liberty.  Like 
laws  against  opium,  cocaine,  lotteries,  and  horseracing,  it  inter- 
feres only  with  personal  license.  Remove  temptation  from  people 
of  weak  or  abnormal  appetites.  One  who  only  drinks  occasionally 
should  vote  "dry"  to  save  them.  The  liquor  traffic  has  never 
benefited  any  one;  it  has  ruined  millions.  Voter,  it  may  ruin 
your  son  or  daughter  as  it  has  ruined  others. 

Carefully  investigate.     Vote  "Yes." 

United  States  Supreme  Court 
Crowley  vs.  Christensen,  137  U.  S.  89-92,  November  10,  1890 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  it  is  the  right  of  every  citizen  of 
the  United  States  to  pursue  any  lawful  trade  or  business,  under 
such  restrictions  as  are  imposed  upon  all  persons  of  the  same  age, 
sex  and  condition.  But  the  possession  and  enjoyment  of  all 
rights  are  subject  to  such  reasonable  conditions  as  may  be 


PROHIBITION  79 

deemed  by  the  governing  authority  of  the  country  essential  to  the 
safety,  health,  peace,  good  order  and  morals  of  the  community. 
Even  liberty  itself,  the  greatest  of  all  rights,  is  not  unrestricted 
license  to  act  according  to  one's  own  will.  It  is  only  freedom 
from  restraint  under  conditions  essential  to  the  equal  enjoyment 
of  the  same  right  by  others.  It  is  then  liberty  regulated  by  law. 
The  right  to  acquire,  enjoy  and  dispose  of  property  is  declared 
in  the  constitutions  of  several  states  to  be  one  of  the  inalienable 
rights  of  man.  But  this  declaration  is  not  held  to  preclude  the 
legislature  of  any  state  from  passing  laws  respecting  the  acqui- 
sition, enjoyment  and  disposition  of  property.  What  contracts 
respecting  its  acquisition  and  disposition  shall  be  valid  and  what 
void  or  voidable;  when  they  shall  be  in  writing  and  when  they 
may  be  made  orally,  and  by  what  instruments  it  may  be  conveyed 
or  mortgaged,  are  subjects  of  constant  legislation.  And  as  to  the 
enjoyment  of  property,  the  rule  is  general  that  it  must  be  accom- 
panied with  such  limitations  as  will  not  impair  the  equal  enjoy- 
ment by  others  of  their  property.  Sic  utere  tuo  ut  alienum  non 
laedas  is  a  maxim  of  universal  application. 

For  the  pursuit  of  any  lawful  trade  or  business,  the  law  im- 
poses similar  conditions.  Regulations  respecting  them  are  almost 
infinite,  varying  with  the  nature  of  the  business.  Some  occupa- 
tions by  the  noise  made  in  their  pursuit,  some  by  the  odors  they 
engender,  and  some  by  the  dangers  accompanying  them,  require 
regulations  as  to  the  locality  in  which  they  shall  be  conducted. 
Some  by  the  dangerous  character  of  the  articles  used,  manufac- 
tured or  sold  require,  also,  special  qualifications  in  the  parties 
permitted  to  use,  manufacture  or  sell  them.  All  this  is  but  com- 
mon knowledge  and  would  hardly  be  mentioned  were  it  not  for 
the  position  often  taken,  and  vehemently  pressed,  that  there  is 
something  wrong  in  principle  and  objectionable  in  similar  restric- 
tions when  applied  to  the  business  of  selling  by  retail,  in  small 
quantities,  spirituous  and  intoxicating  liquors.  It  is  urged  that, 
as  the  liquors  are  used  as  a  beverage,  and  the  injury  following 
them,  if  taken  in  excess,  is  voluntarily  inflicted  and  is  confined  to 
the  party  offending,  their  sales  should  be  without  restrictions,  the 
contention  being  that  what  a  man  shall  drink,  equally  with  what 
he  shall  eat,  is  not  properly  a  matter  for  legislation. 

There  is  in  this  position  an  assumption  of  a  fact  which  does 
not  exist,  that  when  the  liquors  are  taken  in  excess  the  injuries 
are  confined  to  the  party  offending.  The  injury,  it  is  true,  first 


8o  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

falls  upon  him  in  his  health,  which  the  habit  undermines ;  in  his 
morals,  which  it  weakens;  and  in  the  self-abasement  which  it 
creates.  But,  as  it  leads  to  neglect  of  business  and  waste  of 
property  and  general  demoralization,  it  affects  those  who  are 
immediately  connected  with  and  dependent  upon  him.  By  the 
general  concurrence  of  opinion  of  every  civilized  and  Christian 
community,  there  are  few  sources  of  crime  and  misery  to  society 
equal  to  the  dramshop,  where  intoxicating  liquors,  in  small  quan- 
tities, to  be  drunk  at  the  time,  are  sold  Indiscriminately  to  all 
parties  applying.  The  statistics  of  every  state  show  a  greater 
amount  of  crime  and  misery  attributable  to  the  use  of  ardent 
spirits  obtained  at  these  retail  liquor  saloons  than  to  any  other 
source.  The  sale  of  such  liquors  in  this  way  has  therefore  been, 
at  all  times,  by  the  courts  of  every  state,  considered  as  the  proper 
subject  of  legislative  regulation.  Not  only  may  a  license  be 
exacted  from  the  keeper  of  the  saloon  before  a  glass  of  his 
liquors  can  be  thus  disposed  of,  but  restrictions  may  be  imposed 
as  to  the  class  of  persons  to  whom  they  may  be  sold,  and  the 
hours  of  the  day,  and  the  days  of  the  week,  on  which  the  saloons 
may  be  opened.  Their  sale  in  that  form  may  be  absolutely  pro- 
hibited. It  is  a  question  of  public  expediency  and  public  morality, 
and  not  of  federal  law.  The  police  power  of  the  state  is  fully 
competent  to  regulate  the  business — to  mitigate  its  evils  or  to 
suppress  it  entirely.  There  is  no  inherent  right  in  a  citizen  to 
thus  sell  intoxicating  liquors  by  retail;  it  is  not  a  privilege  of  a 
citizen  of  the  state  or  of  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  As  it  is 
a  business  attended  with  danger  to  the  community  it  may,  as 
already  said,  be  entirely  prohibited,  or  be  permitted  under  such 
conditions  as  will  limit  to  the  utmost  its  evils.  The  manner  and 
extent  of  regulation  rest  in  the  discretion  of  the  governing  au- 
thority. That  authority  may  vest  in  such  officers  as  it  may  deem 
proper  the  power  of  passing  upon  applications  for  permission  to 
carry  it  on,  and  to  issue  licenses  for  that  purpose.  It  is  a  matter 
of  legislative  will  only.  As  in  many  other  cases,  the  officers  may 
not  always  exercise  the  power  conferred  upon  them  with  wisdom 
or  justice  to  the  parties  affected.  But  that  is  a  matter  which 
does  not  affect  the  authority  of  the  state,  or  one  which  can  be 
brought  under  the  cognizance  of  the  courts  of  the  United  States. 


PROHIBITION  81 

.  Independent.   75:25-6.   July  3,  19*3 

What  Prohibition  Has  Done  for  Kansas.    Charles  M.  Sheldon 

So  many  lies  have  been  told  about  Prohibition  in  Kansas 
that  many  good  people  all  over  the  country  still  believe  the 
law  is  a  failure.  With  persistent  regularity  Ac  brewers'  publi- 
cations assert  that  under  Prohibition  more  liquor  is  consumed 
in  Kansas  than  under  high  license,  and  in  the  next  breath  they 
say  that  if  die  fanatical  Prohibitionists  continue  to  pass  their 
laws  the  liquor  business  will  soon  be  doomed. 

The  Kansas  prohibitory  law  has  been  a  part  of  our  constitu- 
tion now^for  over  thirty-two  years.  After  nearly  a  third  of  a 
century  of  this  law  die  following  may  honestly  be  stated  as 
some  permanent  results : 

I.  In  a  great  majority  of  the  105  counties  of  the  state  the 
prohibitory  law  is  obeyed  and  enforced  as  well  as  other  laws. 
All  laws  are  broken  more  or  less  in  all  die  states.  Murders 
are  committed  sometimes  even  in  New  York,  but  no  one  insists 
on  criticizing  the  law  against  murder  because  murders  continue. 
The  prohibitory  law  has  always  been  criticized  because  it  does 
not  absolutely  stop  every  legal  sale  of  liquor.  But  why  should 
the  prohibitory  law  be  expected  to  do  more  than  any  other  law 
does?  Based  on  the  same  principle  as  other  laws  it  is  fair  to 
say  that  Prohibition  does  prohibit  in  Kansas.  This  does  not 
mean  that  you  cannot  get  a  drink  in  Kansas  or  that  there  are 
no  places  where  drink  is  sold,  any  more  dian  it  is  impossible 
for  a  murder  to  occur  in  New  York,  but  it  does  mean  that  the 
prohibitory  law  is  regarded  as  a  part  of  the  constitution  and 
accepted  by  the  people  generally  as  the  setded  policy  of  the 


2.  After   thirty-two   years   of   Prohibition    in    Kansas    the 
Honor  business  ranks  with  crime  and  the  man  who  engages  in 
it  is  regarded  as  a  criminal. 

There  are  no  respectable  brewers  in  Kansas.  A  "jomtisr"  is 
in  die  same  class  as  a  horse  thief  or  a  burglar.  The  young 
men  and  women  of  the  state  would  no  more  plan  to  make 
liquor  selling  their  occupation  than  they  would  plan  to  make  a 
living  by  blowing  open  safes. 

3.  As  a  result  of  Prohibition  in  Kansas  the  habit  of  social 
drinking  has  fatten  into  disrepute.    It  is  probably  safe  to  say 
that   among   the    1,600,000   people   in   Kansas   more   men   and 


82  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

women  can  be  found  who  never  touch  intoxicating  liquor  than 
in  any  other  spot  on  the  globe. 

The  use  of  liquor  at  receptions,  banquets  and  festive  occa- 
sions generally  is  very  rare.  Even  political  banquets  are  so 
closely  watched  that  it  is  quite  safe  to  say  if  any  party  in 
power  in  Kansas  today  should  make  a  practice  of  putting  even 
beer  on  its  banquet  tables  that  fact  would  be  an  issue  big 
enough  to  vote  the  party  out  of  power. 

4.  Not    only    is    the    social    use    of    liquor    infrequent    and 
unpopular  but  the  use  of  liquor  as  a  medicine  is  fast  disappear- 
ing.    I  have  questioned  scores  of  young  and  successful  doctors 
and  learn  that  a  great  majority  of  them  never  prescribe  liquor 
for  any   case  whatever.     Towns  all  over  Kansas  of  2,000  or 
3,000  people  are  common  where  not  a  drop  of  alcohol  in  any 
form  could  be  found  in  case  of  sickness.     The  drug  stores  are 
not  allowed  to  handle  alcohol  for  any  purpose,  and  as  a  result 
it  is   safe  to   say  a  healthier   lot  of  people  than  the   average 
Kansans  could  hardly  be  found  anywhere  on  earth. 

5.  The  result  of  the  prohibitory  law  has  been  so  educational 
that  practically  every  newspaper  in  the  state  is  for  the  law  and 
its  enforcement.     Of  the  more  than  800  papers  in  the  state  I 
do  not  know  of  one  that  ever  prints  any  liquor  advertisements. 
During  a  recent  editorial  convention  held  in  the  state  at  which 
150  editors  were  present  a  resolution  endorsing  Prohibition  and 
praising  its  results  was  passed  by  the  editors  without  a  dissent- 
ing vote.     It  must  be  said  for  the  press  of  Kansas  that  it  was 
largely  responsible  for  the  enactment  of  the  law.     The  papers 
joined  hands  with  the  churches   and  temperance  organizations 
to  create  sentiment  and  form  public  opinion.    As  a  result  of  that 
stand  taken  thirty-two  years  ago  Kansas  has  today  a  newspaper 
constituency  educated  to  understand  the  value  of  what  was  then 
won. 

6.  The  economic  results  of  Prohibition  are  sometimes  cited 
first  as  being  the  most  important.     They  are  often  demanded 
by  opponents  of  Prohibition  as  if  the  whole  principle  depended 
on  being  able  to  prove  a  decrease  in  taxes  or  an  increase  in 
real  estate  values.    Plenty  of  economic  results  of  Prohibition  in 
Kansas  can  be  shown  to  any  one  who   asks   for  them.     The 
largest  per  capita  wealth  is  in  Kansas  today.    Kansas  contains 
more  people  who  own  their  own  homes  than  any  other  state  in 
the  Union.     She  has  the  fewest  paupers  in  proportion  to  her 


PROHIBITION 

all  that—  but  after  all,  the  greatest  and 
valuable  result  to  the  state,  ike  greatest  thing  that  Prohibition 
has  done  for  Kansas,  is  to  establish  the  conviction  with  the  young 
generation  that  the  entire  Honor  business  is  an  iniquity  and  an 
evil  without  one  redeeming  quality,  and  that  it  is  the  business 
of  dv&xed  men  and  women  to  rub  it  off  the  map  of  the  world. 

liquor  into  Prohibition  states,  has  already  proved  the  greatest 
help  to  local  enforcement.  The  Mahin  law,  passed  by  die 
Kansas  legislature  and  based  on  the  Webb  hul,  has  resulted  in 
freight  shipments  in  some  localities  down  to  a  minimum, 


so  that  instead  of  trying  to  run  a  joint,  law  breakers  are  now 
reduced  to  going  to  Kansas  City  with  an  empty  suit  case  and 
bringing  it  back  full  of  whisky  or  beer.  And  when  a  saloon  is 
reduced  to  the  limits  of  a  suit  case  by  the  rigor  of  a  law,  it 
win  soon  have  no  visible  means  of  support. 

If  any  reader  of  the  Independent  is  doubtful  about  conditions 
in  Kansas  and  still  thinks  that  Prohibition  does  not  prohibit, 
or  that  the  law  is  not  enforced,  I  will  pay  his  hotel  bills  in 
Topeka  for  a  week  if  after  an  honest  investigation  of  conditions 
in  Topeka  he  is  convinced  that  the  law  in  the  capital  city  of 
Kansas  is  a  failure. 


Congressional  Record.    52:495-616.    December  22,  1914. 
Prohibition  in  Kansas.    John  R  Connelly 

I  feel  personally  that  there  has  never  come  and  can  never 
come  any  lasting  good  to  us  as  a  people  either  from  the 
manufacture  or  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors.  I  want  in  this 
matter  and  in  all  other  matters  that  come  up  for  consideration 
here,  and  upon  which  men  may  honestly  differ,  to  exercise  that 
charity  for  the  opinions  of  others  that  I  would  desire  that  they 
should  exercise  for  the  opinions  that  are  mine.  I  have  never 
known  a  man  who  was  intolerant  in  his  opinions  whom  I  would 
care  to  follow  or  for  whom  I  could  have  a  lasting  respect. 

I  am  proud  of  die  fact  that  I  come  from  a  state  that  has 
for  more  man  a  third  of  a  century  embraced  in  its  fundamental 
law  a  provision  mat  forbade  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  intoxi- 
cating liquors.  I  shall  not  come  to  you  today  and  say  that 
the  driving  of  the  liquor  traffic  from  a  state  will  solve  all  the 


84  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

ills  that  humans  are  heir  to.  Not  all  the  ills  of  humanity  are 
due  either  to  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors. 
If  this  resolution  should  carry  and  the  requisite  number  of 
states  ratify  it  to  make  it  binding  on  all  the  states  of  the 
Union,  there  would  still  be  questions  to  solve  that  would  require 
the  best  thought  of  the  best  men  and  women  of  the  land  to 
find  a  solution  for.  But,  Mr.  Chairman,  while  I  do  not  contend 
that  liquor  is  the  basis  of  all  evil,  I  am  convinced  that  no 
permanent  or  lasting  good  can  come  to  a  people  either  from 
the  manufacture  of  or  the  traffic  in  an  article  that  brings  benefit 
to  none  and  brings  harm  to  so  many.  Feeling  this  way  about 
it  I  shall  not  hesitate  to  cast  my  vote  for  this  resolution. 

I  have  heard  some  contend  that  Prohibition  is  a  failure  in 
the  states  that  have  tried  it,  and  it  is  of  this  that  I  desire 
to  address  my  few  remarks  today.  There  is  not  an  argument 
of  the  opponents  to  Prohibition  in  states  where  it  has  been 
tried  that  will,  in  my  opinion,  stand  the  test  of  reason.  There 
is  no  evidence  anywhere  that  Prohibition  has  been  a  failure  in 
the  state  of  Kansas.  I  have  heard  some  contend  that  there  is 
more  liquor  consumed  in  states  having  Prohibition  than  there 
is  in  states  which  do  not  have  it.  If  that  statement  needed  any 
argument  to  refute  it,  the  argument  could  be  found  in  the 
bitter  fight  that  the  liquor  interests  make  against  Prohibition 
everywhere,  and  no  one  is  ready  to  believe  that  they  are 
anxious  to  curtail  their  output  or  reduce  the  consumption  of 
their  commodity.  I  know  that  no  fair  man  who  is  informed 
will  contend  that  the  law  has  increased  the  consumption  of 
liquor  in  the  state  that  I  am  proud  to  call  my  home. 

In  Kansas  we  have  a  law  which  requires  the  agents  of 
common  carriers,  such  as  the  railroad  and  express  companies, 
to  furnish  the  names  of  the  consignee  and  the  amount  con- 
signed to  the  county  clerk  of  each  county,  and  I  am  persuaded 
that  these  companies  are  very  careful  to  obey  this  law.  This 
gives  a  very  accurate  accounting  of  the  amount  of  liquor  con- 
sumed in  the  state.  By  this  record  we  find  that  the  amount  of 
intoxicating  liquors  shipped  into  the  state  last  year  averaged  less 
than  $1.50  for  each  adult  male  citizen  of  the  state,  while  other 
states  have  an  average  of  $30  per  capita. 

Kansas  is  not  ashamed  of  her  prohibitory  law  nor  of  the 
progress  that  she  has  made  in  that  third  of  a  century  which 
this  has  been  a  part  of  the  fundamental  law  of  the  land.  She 


PROHIBITION  85 

has  Prohibition,  and  along  with  it  she  has  some  other  things 
that  her  citizens,  no  matter  where  you  find  them,  are  proud  to 
enumerate. 

She  has  but  half  the  population  of  Missouri  and  has  twice 
the  number  of  students  in  her  state  university. 

She  has  more  than  twice  the  population  of  Colorado,  and  she 
has  fewer  prisoners  in  her  state  penitentiary. 

She  has  twenty-nine  counties  without  an  inmate  in  a  poor- 
house  and  eighteen  counties  without  a  poorhouse. 

Her  entire  state  debt  is  less  than  20  cents  for  each  man, 
woman  and  child,  and  she  has  half  that  amount  laid  away  in 
her  vaults  in  cash,  waiting  for  the  debt  to  come  due. 

Her  agricultural  and  livestock  crop  alone  this  year  will  reach 
the  stupendous  sum  of  $620,000,000. 

Last  year  she  sold  over  $25,000,000  worth  of  eggs  and  butter, 
and  this  year  she  raised  160,000,000  bushels  of  wheat 

While  she  spent  less  than  $1.50  last  year  for  liquor  per  capita, 
she  spent  over  $15,000,000  to  educate  the  400,000  boys  and  girls 
that  wend  their  way  to  the  common  schools  of  that  great  com- 
monwealth. The  state  of  Kansas  is  not  ashamed  of  the  fact 
that  80  per  cent  of  these  boys  and  girls  never  saw  a  saloon  or  a 
place  where  intoxicating  liquors  were  legally  sold. 

Kansas  comes  to  you  today  with  no  apologies  for  those  laws 
that  you  who  are  not  in  sympathy  with  Prohibition  are  pleased 
to  term  sumptuary  laws. 

On  the  3d  day  of  last  November  her  citizens,  men  and 
women,  to  the  number  of  528,000,  went  to  the  polls  and  cast  a 
ballot  for  governor,  and  only  I  out  of  every  n  voted  for  the 
candidate  on  a  resubmission  platform. 

We  of  Kansas,  where  the  storm  over  Prohibition  has  ceased 
to  rage,  have  met  and  in  our  honest  opinion  defeated  every 
contention  as  to  the  abolishing  the  sale  and  manufacture  of 
liquor,  bringing  want  and  squalor  to  the  threshold  of  the  labor- 
ing man.  We  have  tried  it,  and  we  know  that  it  is  not  true. 
Our  laboring  men  and  our  business  men  have  long  since  ceased 
to  contend  that  the  man  who  spends  40  cents  out  of  every  dollar 
that  he  earns  over  the  bar  for  strong  drink  thereby  helps  him- 
self or  helps  legitimate  business  of  every  kind.  We  know  that 
every  dollar  that  goes  for  strong  drink  is  just  one  dollar  less 
with  which  to  buy  food  and  raiment  that  adds  to  the  happiness 
of  himself  and  his  family. 


86  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

A  folder  sent  out  by  some  one  who  is  interested  in  the  defeat 
of  this  resolution  came  to  my  notice  a  day  or  so  ago,  which 
says  that  if  you  legislate  to  do  away  with  the  jobs  of  the  fellows 
who  work  in  the  breweries  and  the  distilleries  it  will  cause  these 
men  great  hardship,  and  they  will  not  be  able  to  support  their 
families  and  buy  their  share  of  the  food  and  clothing  that  is 
necessary  for  them.  This  is  a  very  legitimate  argument  were 
it  sound,  but  to  our  mind  it  is  by  no  means  unanswerable.  It 
may  for  a  time  make  a  little  readjustment  necessary,  but  if  the 
money  that  men  spend  for  drink  was  spent  for  additional  food 
and  clothing  it  would  create  an  additional  demand  for  these 
articles  which  would  demand  additional  labor  in  their  produc- 
tion, and  the  man  who  is  now  employed  in  these  industries  would 
find  that  his  services  were  in  demand  in  other  and  in  our 
opinion  more  fruitful  lines. 

In  the  transitory  period  from  high  license  to  enforced  Pro- 
hibition in  Kansas  many  towns  with  2,000  inhabitants  allowed, 
through  a  system  of  fines,  which  amounted  to  high  license,  the 
running  of  places  where  liquor  was  sold.  It  was  necessary  so 
long  as  these  "blind  tigers"  were  tolerated  to  have  a  considerable 
police  force,  and  to  many  of  them  it  never  occurred  that  with 
the  driving  out  of  the  saloon  would  go  the  necessity  of  much 
of  their  police  protection.  These  places  were  allowed  to  run  in 
some  places  because  the  business  men  thought  the  revenue  to 
pay  all  this  police  force  would  necessarily  be  placed  upon  them, 
and  they  were  willing  to  tolerate  the  saloon  in  order,  as  they 
thought,  to  escape  the  tax.  Later,  when  public  sentiment 
demanded  a  better  enforcement  of  the  law,  they  in  many 
instances  found  that  with  the  going  of  the  "blind  tiger"  there 
went  also  much  of  the  necessity  for  additional  expense.  It  is 
not  an  unknown  thing  in  Kansas  today  to  see  towns  of  2,000 
people  where  once  three  police  officers  were  thought  to  be  neces- 
sary now  getting  along  with  one,  and  this  one  finds  his  duties 
limited  largely  to  supervising  street  improvement,  moving  the 
garbage  from  the  back  alleys,  and  enforcing  the  ordinance 
prohibiting  chickens  and  pigs  from  running  at  large. 

Today  we  issue  this  challenge  and  feel  free  in  so  doing: 
We  dare  you  to  find  a  community  in  the  state  of  Kansas  where 
the  abolishing  of  the  sale  and  manufacture  of  liquor  has 
permanently  increased  the  taxes  raised  in  other  ways,  where  it 


PROHIBITION  87 

has  increased  the  crime  in  the  community  or  contention  among 
its  citizens,  where  it  has  increased  want  and  misery  among  her 
people  or  has  made  it  more  difficult  for  men  to  reap  a  recom- 
pense for  their  honest  endeavor.  I  know  little  about  the  work- 
ings of  Prohibition  elsewhere,  but  when  those  who,  are  opposed 
to  the  principle  desire  to  point  out  a  place  where  Prohibition 
has  been  a  failure  you  must  leave  Kansas  out  of  your  calcu- 
lations. 

You  who  are  here  today  honest  in  the  belief  that  you  should 
defeat  this  measure  should  understand  that  you  are  standing  at 
the  ocean's  ledge  fighting  to  beat  back  the  tide  that  is  sure  to 
engulf  you.  You  perhaps  may  defeat  it  today,  but  you  can 
hardly  hope  to  make  your  victory  a  permanent  one,  for  some- 
where and  somehow  there  will  always  come  enough  recruits  to 
every  cause  which  involves  the  highest  ideals  of  a  free  people 
to  beat  down  the  battlements  of  wrong. 

I  am  glad  to  speak  today  for  the  splendid  commonwealth  of 
Prohibition,  Kansas.  A  half  million  boys  and  girls  tread  her 
highways  who  never  saw  a  place  where  liquor  was  legally  sold 
and  a  hundred  thousand  of  them  never  saw  a  drunken  man 
nor  do  they  know  the  taste  of  liquor.  The  older  generations  are 
not  entirely  free  from  the  baneful  effects  of  the  liquor  habit; 
but  from  the  loins  of  that  mighty  people  there  is  coming  into 
maturity  a  new  generation  free  from  the  tyranny  of  its  hurtful 
reign.  May  it  please  God  that  with  the  coming  of  another 
generation  we  may  not  only  appreciate  the  benign  influence  of 
state-wide  Prohibition,  but  may  we  hope  that  glad  day  will 
find  no  place  where  a  licensed  grogshop  may  find  lodgment 
under  the  protecting  folds  of  the  national  flag.  For  this  we 
dare  to  hope,  for  this  we  dare  to  pray,  for  this  we  dare  to  vote. 


Report  of  the  President's  Homes  Commission,  p.  236. 
Total  Alcoholic  Drink  Bill 

Bringing  together  the  quantities  of  liquors  consumed,  esti- 
mated at  the  retail  cost  on  the  basis  of  previous  reports,  it  is 
shown  that  the  American  people  spent  for  alcoholic  stimulants 
for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1907 : 


88  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

I 
Beer   .......................................  $    843,333,829 

Whisky  (exclusive  of  quantity  used  in  arts)   ...        118,456,091 
Grand  total,  1907    ...........................       ,466,544,327 

1906    ...........................       ,450,855,448 

1905    ............................  325,439,074 

1904    ...........................       ,277,727,190 

1903    ...........................       ,242,943,118 

1902    ...........................       ,172,565,235 

1901    ...........................       ,094,644,155 

1900    ...........................       ,059,563,787 

1899    ...........................        973,589,080 

We  must  leave  to  students  of  social  economy  the  question  of 
a  great  nation  spending  an  average  of  over  one  and  one-half 
billions  annually  for  stimulating  beverages  ;  a  sum  about  as  great 
as  the  appropriations  of  the  congress  for  a  session.  Nearly 
double  as  much  per  capita  is  spent  for  tirink  as  is  spent  for  the 
maintenance  of  public  schools.  It  nearly  equals  the  value  of 
exports  of  merchandise  per  capita.  It  is  double  the  amount  of 
the  public  debt.  It  is  more  than  the  farm  value  of  the  corn  crop, 
which  exceeds  2,500,000,000  bushels  ;  three  times  the  value  of  the 
wheat  grown;  more  than  double  the  worth  of  the  cotton  crop. 
The  indirect  cost  is  beyond  estimate,  and  so  great  is  the  waste 
and  misery  created  that  states  are  fighting  the  evil  and  endeavor- 
ing to  banish  the  saloon  as  a  distributing  factor.  It  is  easily  the 
foremost  question  of  the  day,  and  places  the  support  of  a  big 
navy  or  army  in  the  shade. 


Brief  Excerpts 

Alcoholism  in  either  of  the  parents  is  one  of  the  most  fruitful 
causes  of  crime  in  the  child.*—  Havelock  Ellis  in  "The  Criminal" 

P.  97. 

The  baleful  influence  of  alcohol  is  one  of  the  best  known  and 
most  transparent  causes  of  crime.  —  Prof.  Aschaffenburg  in 
"Crime  and  Its  Repression,"  p.  69. 

All  labor  expended  in  producing  strong  drink  is  utterly  un- 
productive; it  adds  nothing  to  the  wealth  of  the  community.  — 
Adam  Smith  in  "The  Wealth  of  Nations." 

If  I  could,  I  would  inaugurate  a  strike  that  would  drive  the 
liquor  traffic  from  the  face  of  the  earth.  —  The  late  P.  M.  Arthur, 
Grand  Chief  of  the  Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Engineers. 

The  history  of  heredity  conducts  us  to  alcoholism,  and  these 


PROHIBITION  89 

two  should  be  considered  the  principal  causes  of  degeneration. — 
Dr.  Jules  Morel  in  American  Journal  of  Sociology.  5 : 81.  //.  '99. 

The  liquor  traffic  is  responsible  for  nine-tenths  of  the  misery 
among  the  working  classes,  and  the  abolition  of  that  traffic  would 
be  the  greatest  blessing  that  could  come  to  them. — Terence  V. 
Powderly. 

It  is  likely  that  alcohol,  as  a  predisposing  or  as  an  immediate 
cause,  is  responsible  for  more  than  a  third  of  all  admissions  to 
our  hospitals  for  the  insane. — Dr.  Rosenau  in  "Preventive  Medi- 
cine and  Hygiene"  p.  301. 

Massachusetts  prison  statistics  show  that  96  per  cent  of  all 
criminals  in  our  prisons  in  1912  were  intemperate  by  habit. — 
From  the  Report  of  the  Commission  to  Investigate  Drunkenness 
in  Massachusetts,  January,  1914,  p.  10. 

Nothing  could  show  more  clearly  what  gives  the  immediate 
impulse  to  assault  and  battery  than  the  fact  that  two-thirds  of 
all  fights  take  place  in,  or  in  front  of,  a  public  house. — Prof. 
Aschaffenburg  in  "Crime  and  Its  Repression,"  p.  79. 

Neal  Dow  quotes  William  E.  Gladstone  as  saying,  "We  have 
suffered  more  in  our  time  from  intemperance  than  from  war, 
pestilence,  and  famine  combined — those  three  great  scourges  of 
mankind."— North  American  Review.  139 : 179.  Aug.  '84. 

Prohibition,  or  at  least  limiting  the  manufacture  of  intoxi- 
cating liquors  is  not  only  a  simple  and  efficacious  means  of  curb- 
ing intemperance  in  the  people,  but  it  is  the  only  way  it  can  be 
done. — Prof.  Guglielmo  Ferrero  in  Pittsburgh  Post,  May  23,  '15. 

A  careful  scientist  has  called  alcohol  the  indispensable  vehicle 
of  the  business  transacted  by  the  white  slave  traders,  and  has 
asserted  that  without  its  use  this  trade  could  not  long  endure. — 
Jane  Addams,  tn  "A  New  Conscience  and  an  Ancient  Evil," 
p.  188. 

It  is  unquestioned  that,  in  most  countries,  the  worst  sunt 


inflicted  upon  women,  children,  and  dumb  animals  are  perpetrated 
under  the  influence  of  strong  drink,  for  this  is  provocative  of 
both  cruelty  and  lust.— William  Tattack  in  "Penological  Princi- 
ples," p.  296. 

In  the  year  1834  a  Parliamentary  Committee  on  Intemperance 
reported  that  the  national  loss  of  productive  labor  through  intem- 
perance amounted  to  £50,000,000  per  annum,  and  was  equal  to  the 
loss  of  one  day's  labor  in  six. — John  Newton  in  ''Our  National 
Drink  Bill,"  p.  115. 


90  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

If  I  could  have  my  way,  I  would  wipe  out  every  saloon.  The 
saloon  is  the  prolific  source  of  nine-tenths  of  the  misery,  wretch- 
edness, and  crime,  and  is,  more  than  we  know,  responsible  for  the 
social  evil. — Rev.  Charles  H.  Parkhurst,  as  quoted  in  New  York 
Voice,  January  16,  1896. 

Hitherto  whisky  and  brandy  have  figured  officially  as  "drugs" 
in  the  U.  S.  Pharmacopoeia,  which  is  the  authoritative  list  of 
medicinal  preparations  recognized  by  physicians.  This  list  is  now 
in  process  of  revision,  and  the  committee  in  charge  have  voted  to 
remove  whisky  and  brandy  from  it. — Literary  Digest  51 : 246.  Ag. 

7,  '15. 

Intemperance  is  a  proximate  cause  of  a  very  large  proportion 
of  the  crime  committed  in  America.  Fully  three-fourths  of  all 
the  prisoners  with  whom  I  have  personally  conversed  in  different 
parts  of  the  country  admitted  that  they  were  addicted  to  an  ex- 
cessive use  of  alcoholic  liquors. — E.  C.  Wines  in  "State  of 
Prisons,"  p.  113. 

We  are  fighting  Germany,  Austria,  and  drink,  and  so  far  as 
I  can  see  the  greatest  of  these  three  deadly  foes  is  drink.  I  have 
a  growing  conviction,  based  on  accumulating  evidence,  that  noth- 
ing but  root  and  branch  methods  would  be  of  the  slightest  avail 
in  dealing  with  the  evil. — David  Lloyd-George,  quoted  in  Amer- 
ican newspapers,  Mr.  30,  '15. 

The  strongest  indictment  against  alcohol  is  that  it  excites  the 
passions  and  at  the  same  time  diminishes  the  will  power.  The 
fact  that  alcohol  lowers  moral  tone  does  much  more  harm  than 
all  the  cirrhotic  livers,  hardened  arteries,  shrunken  kidneys,  in- 
flamed stomachs,  and  other  lesions  believed  to  be  caused  by  its 
excessive  use. — Dr.  Rosenau  in  "Preventive  Medicine  and  Hy- 
giene, p.  58. 

We  have  attributed  the  abnormal  increase  of  criminality  and 
pauperism  in  the  United  States  largely  to  an  increase  of  intem- 
perance. Alcoholic  drink  is  estimated  to  be  the  direct  or  indirect 
cause  of  75  per  cent  of  all  the  crimes  committed,  and  of  at  least 
50  per  cent  of  all  the  sufferings  endured  on  account  of  poverty, 
in  this  country  and  among  civilized  nations. — H.  M.  Boise  in 
"Prisoners  and  Paupers,"  />.  137. 

Prohibition  is  not  a  new  rule  although  from  the  nature  of 
things,  it  is  the  only  one  which  can  result  in  prevention  and 
destroy  the  traffic.  Its  imperfect  application  is  the  only  possible 
reason  for  failure,  and  it  is  singular  reasoning  which  demands 


PROHIBITION  91 

the  abandonment  of  die  best  remedy  in  disease  because  it  has  not 
been  administered  to  the  patient. — Senator  Henry  W.  Blair  in 
"Tke  Temperance  Movement,"  p.  560. 

The  result  of  medical  inspection  in  the  schools  of  New  York 
has  revealed  die  fact  that  53  per  cent  of  the  children  of  iliuhuft 
parents  are  "dullards,"  as  compared  with  10  per  cent  of  the  chil- 
dren of  abstainers.  Researches  on  animals  which  had  small 
quantities  of  alcohol  administered  in  their  food  prove  decisively 
that  die  hereditary  factor  in  alcoholism  is  not  imaginary.— £>r. 
Bryce  in  "The  Laws  of  Life  and  Health,"  p.  105. 

The  committee  finds  that  the  chief  direct  cause  of  the  down- 
fall of  women  and  girls  is  the  close  connection  between  alcoholic 
drink  and  commercialized  vice.  Women  obtain  liquor  in  palm 
gardens,  wine  rooms,  saloons,  and  dance  halls.  To  these  places 
they  are  frequently  taken  by  their  companions  and  given  liquor 
until  their  senses  are  deadened,  after  which  die  evfl  design  sought 
is  accomplished.  After  the  first  offaae  the  career  of  a  woman 
is  apt  to  fee  downward  at  a  rapid  rate. — Report  of  the  Wisconsin 
Vice  Committee  (1914),  p.  98. 

In  the  Commission's  consideration  and  investigation  of  the 
social  evil,  it  found  as  die  most  conspicuous  and  important  de- 
ment in  connection  with  the  ri«r,  next  to  the  house  of  prostitu- 
tion itself,  was  the  saloon,  and  the  most  important  financial  inter- 
est, next  to  the  business  of  prostitution  was  the  liquor  interest. 
As  a  contributory  influence  to  immorality  and  the  business  of 
prostitution  there  is  no  interest  so  dangerous  and  so  powerful  in 
the  city  of  Chicago. — The  Social  Evil  in  Chicago  [Report  of  the 
Vice  Commission  of  Chicago,  1911].  p.  119. 

Twenty  per  cent  of  all  cases  of  umail>,  and  more  than  h  If 
of  the  cases  of  suicide,  owe  their  origin  to  alcohol.  Where  -he 
use  of  alcohol  is  prohibited  the  number  of  arrests  for  crim  :  at 
once  falls.  During  the  recent  terrible  earthquake  at  San  Fran- 
cisco all  places  for  the  sale  of  alcohol  were  closed,  and,  despite 
the  prevailing  conditions  of  social  anarchy,  the  average  daily 
number  of  arrests  for  crime  was  only  three.  The  very  day  the 
saloons  were  opened  no  less  than  seventy  people  were  arrested, 
and  this  number  was  much  increased  on  subsequent  days.— AT. 
Alexander  Bryce  in  "The  Laws  of  life  and  Health,"  p.  105. 

The  liquor  franks  are  excited  because  the  anti-booze  agi- 
tation threatens  "properties  valued  in  the  aggregate  at  perhaps 
$2,000,000,000."  It  may  comfort  them  to  reflect  that  this  "per- 


92  PROHIBITION 

haps"  total  of  theirs  is  almost  exactly  one  ninety-fourth  of  the 
estimated  wealth  of  the  United  States.  But  it  causes  an  alto- 
gether disproportionate  part  of  the  total  crime,  disease,  suffering, 
and  waste  with  which  our  country  is  afflicted.  The  rest  of  us 
pay  mighty  heavy  taxes  in  all  these  ways  to  keep  up  their 
"values."  Booze  wealth  is  the  most  selfish,  tyrannous,  and 
wooden-headed  form  of  property  known  to  our  civilization,  and 
it  ought  to  be  possible  to  scale  its  fraction  down  (and  out)  with 
perfect  safety  and  great  gain.  Why  should  a  minor  interest  be 
a  major  nuisance? — Editorial.  Collier's  Weekly.  54:  14  //.  3,  '15. 


NEGATIVE  DISCUSSION 

McClure's  Magazine.  31:    438-44-    August,  1908. 
Prohibition  and  Social  Psychology.    Hugo  Munsterberg. 

If  a  German  stands  up  to  talk  about  Prohibition,  he  might 
just  as  well  sit  down  at  once,  for  every  one  in  America,  of  course, 
knows  beforehand  what  he  is  going  to  say.  Worse,  every  one 
knows  also  exactly  why  he  is  so  anxious  to  say  it:  how  can  he 
help  being  on  the  wrong  side  of  this  question?  And  especially 
if  he  has  been  a  student  in  Germany,  he  will  have  brought  the 
drinking  habit  along  with  him  from  the  Fatherland,  together  with 
his  cigar  smoking  and  card  playing  and  duelling.  If  a  poor  man 
relies  on  his  five  quarts  of  heavy  Munich  beer  a  day,  how  can  he 
ever  feel  happy  if  he  is  threatened  with  no  license  in  his  town 
and  with  no  beer  in  his  stein?  Yet  my  case  seems  slightly  differ- 
ent. I  never  in  my  life  played  cards,  I  never  fought  a  duel,  and 
when  the  other  day  in  a  large  women's  college,  after  an  address 
and  a  reception,  the  lady  president  wanted  to  comfort  me  and 
suggested  that  I  go  into  the  next  room  and  smoke  a  cigar,  I  told 
her  frankly  that  I  could  do  it  if  it  were  the  rule  in  her  college, 
but  that  it  would  be  my  first  cigar.  With  beer  it  is  different: 
Last  winter  in  traveling  I  was  for  some  days  the  guest  of  an 
Episcopal  clergyman,  who,  anticipating  the  visit  of  a  German,  had 
set  up  a  bottle  of  excellent  beer  as  a  welcome,  and  we  drank 
together  the  larger  part  of  the  bottle — but  I  think  that  is  my  only 
case  in  late  years.  When  I  had  to  attend  a  Students'  "Commers," 
I  was  always  protected  by  the  thick  mug  through  which  no  one 
could  discover  that  the  contents  never  became  less  during  the 
evening.  I  live  most  comfortably  in  a  pleasant  temperance  town 
which  will,  I  hope,  vote  no-license  year  by  year  as  long  as  fresh- 
men stroll  over  the  old  Harvard  Yard.  And  although  I  have 
become  pretty  much  Americanized  I  have  never  drunk  a  cocktail. 

The  problem  of  Prohibition,  thus,  does  not  affect  my  thirst, 
but  it  greatly  interests  my  scientific  conscience ;  not  as  a  German, 
but  as  a  psychologist  I  feel  impelled  to  add  a  word  to  the  dis- 


94  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

cussion  which  is  suddenly  reverberating  over  the  whole  country. 
But  is  it  really  a  discussion  which  we  hear?  Is  it  not  rather  a 
one-sided  denunciation  of  alcohol,  repeated  a  million  times  with 
louder  and  louder  voice,  an  outcry  ever  swelling  in  its  vehe- 
mence? On  the  other  side  there  may  be  the  protests  of  the  dis- 
tillers and  brewers  and  wine-growers  and  bottle-makers  and 
saloon-keepers,  and  perhaps  some  timid  declarations  of  thirsty 
societies — but  such  protests  do  not  count,  since  they  have  all  the 
earmarks  of  selfishness;  they  are  ruled  out,  and  no  one  listens, 
just  as  no  one  would  consult  the  thieves  if  a  new  statute  against 
pickpockets  were  planned.  So  far  as  the  really  disinterested  pub- 
lic is  concerned,  the  discussion  is  essentially  one-sided.  If  serious 
men  like  Cardinal  Gibbons  raise  their  voices  in  a  warning  against 
Prohibition,  they  are  denounced  and  overborne,  and  no  one  cares 
to  imitate  them. 

The  Fundamental  Evil  of  American  Public  Opinion 

It  has  been  seldom  indeed  that  the  fundamental  evil  of  Amer- 
ican public  opinion  has  come  out  so  clearly;  namely,  that  no  one 
dares  to  be  on  the  unpopular  side;  just  as  in  fashion  and  social 
life,  every  one  wants  to  be  "in  it."  No  problem  has  in  America 
a  fair  hearing  as  soon  as  one  side  has  become  the  fashion  of 
mind.  Only  the  cranks  come  out  with  an  unbalanced,  exagger- 
ated opposition  and  thus  really  help  the  cause  they  want  to  fight 
against.  The  well-balanced  thinkers  keep  quiet  and  simply  look 
on  while  the  movement  rushes  forward,  waiting  quietly  for  the 
reaction  which  sets  in  from  the  inner  absurdity  of  every  social 
extreme.  The  result  is  too  often  an  hysterical  zig-zag  movement, 
where  fearlessness  might  have  found  a  middle  way  of  steady 
progress.  There  must  be  indeed  a  possible  middle  way  between 
the  evil  of  the  present  saloon  and  the  not  lesser  evil  of  a  future 
national  Prohibition;  yet  if  this  one-sidedness  of  discussion  goes 
on,  it  is  not  difficult  to  foresee,  after  the  legislative  experiences 
of  the  last  year,  that  the  hysterical  movement  will  not  stop  until 
Prohibition  is  proclaimed  from  every  statehouse  between  the 
Atlantic  and  the  Pacific. 

Exaggerated  denunciation  of  the  Prohibition  movement  is,  of 
course,  ineffective.  Whoever  simply  takes  sides  with  the  saloon- 
keeper and  his  clientele — yes,  whoever  is  blind  to  the  colossal 
harm  which  alcohol  has  brought  and  is  now  bringing  to  the  whole 
country — is  unfit  to  be  heard  by  those  who  have  the  healthy  and 


PROHIBITION  55 

sound  development  of  the  nation  at  heart.  The  evils  which  are 
connected  with  the  drinking  habit  are  gigantic;  riwwg^tiH^  of 
tires  and  many  more  thousands  of  households  are  the  victims 
every  year;  disease  and  poverty  and  crime  grow  op  where  alco- 
hol drenches  die  soiL  To  deny  it  means  to  ignore  the  teachings 
of  medicine  and  economics  and  criminology. 

But  is  this  undeniable  fact  really  a  proof  of  the  wisdom  of 
Prohibition?  The  railroads  of  the  United  States  injured  last 
year  more  than  loogooo  persons  and  put  out  7,000  hopeful  fives ; 
does  any  sane  man  argue  that  we  ought  to  abolish  railroads? 
The  stock  exchange  has  brought  in  the  last  year  economic  misery 
to  uncounted  homes,  but  even  at  the  height  of  the  panic  no  one 
wanted  to  destroy  the  market  for  industrial  stocks.  How  much 
crime  and  disaster  and  disease  and  ruin  have  come  into  the  fives 
of  American  youth  through  women,  and  yet  who  doubts  that 
women  are  the  blessing  of  the  whole  national  fife?  To  say  that 
certain  evils  come  from  a  certain  source  suggests  only  to  fools 
the  hasty  annihilation  of  the  source  before  studying  whether 
greater  evils  might  not  result  from  its  destruction,  and  without 
asking  whether  die  evils  might  not  be  reduced,  and  the  good  from 
die  same  source  remain  untouched  and  nn tampered  with.  Even 
if  a  hollow  tooth  aches,  the  modern  dentist  does  not  think  of 
pulling  it ;  that  would  be  the  remedy  of  the  clumsy  village  bar- 
ber. The  evils  of  drink  exist,  and  to  neglect  their  cure  would  be 
criminal,  but  to  rush  on  to  the  conclusion  that  every  vimjaid 
ought  therefore  to  be  devastated  is  unworthy  of  the  logic  of  a 
self-governing  nation.  The  other  side  has  first  to  show  its  case. 

"Better  England  Free  Than  England  Sober r 

This  does  not  mean  that  every  argument  of  the  other  side  is 
valid.  In  most  of  the  public  protestations,  especially  from  die 
Middle  West,  far  too  much  is  made  of  the  claim  that  all  die 
Puritanic  laws  and  the  whole  prohibitionist  movement  are  an 
interference  with  personal  liberty.  It  is  an  old  argument,  indeed, 
"Better  England  free  than  England  sober."  For  public  meetings 
it  is  just  the  kind  of  protest  which  resounds  well  and  rolls  on 
nobly.  We  are  at  once  in  die  midst  of  the  "most  sacred"  rights. 
Who  desires  diat  America,  the  idol  of  those  who  seek  freedom 
from  die  tyranny  of  the  old  world,  shall  trample  on  die  right 
of  personal  liberty?  And  yet  those  hundreds  of  singing-societies 
have  joined  in  this  outburst  of  moral  imBtpmiimi  have 


96  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

forgotten  that  every  law  is  a  limitation  of  personal  liberty.  The 
demand  of  the  nation  must  limit  the  demands  of  the  individual, 
even  if  it  be  not  the  neighbor,  but  the  actor  himself  who  is 
directly  hurt.  No  one  wants  to  see  the  lottery,  gambling-houses 
or  free  sale  of  morphine  and  cocaine  permitted,  or  slavery,  even 
though  a  man  were  to  offer  himself  for  sale,  or  polygamy,  even 
though  all  wives  should  consent.  To  prevent  temptation  toward 
ruinous  activities  is  truly  the  state's  best  right,  and  no  injury  to 
personal  liberty.  The  German  reflects  gladly  how  much  more  the 
German  state  apparently  intrudes  upon  personal  freedom :  for 
instance,  in  its  splendid  state  insurance  for  old  age  and  accidents. 

To  be  sure,  from  this  German  viewpoint  it  is  hard  to  under- 
stand why  the  right  of  the  state  to  subordinate  personal  wishes 
to  national  ones  should  not  carry  with  it  a  duty  to  make  com- 
pensation. To  him  the  actions  of  some  southern  states  appear 
simply  as  the  confiscation  of  property.  When,  as  has  happened, 
a  captain  of  industry  erects,  for  instance,  a  most  costly  brewery, 
and  the  state  in  the  following  year  prohibits  the  sale  of  beer, 
turning  the  large,  new  establishment  into  a  huge,  useless  ruin, 
without  giving  the  slightest  compensation,  the  foreigner  stands 
aghast,  wondering  if  tomorrow  a  party  which  believes  in  the 
state  ownership  of  railroads  may  not  prohibit  railroading  by 
private  companies  without  any  payment  to  the  present  owners. 

Yet  the  political  aspect  does  not  concern  the  social  psycholo- 
gist. I  abstract  from  it  as  from  many  others.  There  is,  indeed, 
no  limit  to  the  problems  which  ought  to  be  studied  more  seriously 
before  such  a  gigantic  revolution  is  organized.  The  physician 
may  ask  whether  and  when  alcohol  is  real  medicine,  and  the 
physiologist  may  study  whether  it  is  a  food  and  whether  it  is 
rightly  taken  as  helpful  to  nutrition ;  but  this  is  not  our  problem. 
The  theologians  may  quarrel  as  to  whether  the  Bible  praises  the 
wine  or  condemns  the  drinker,  whether  Christ  really  turned  water 
into  that  which  we  call  wine,  and  whether  Christianity  as  such 
stands  for  abstinence.  It  is  matter  for  the  economist  to  ask  what 
will  become  of  the  hundred  thousands  of  men  who  are  working 
today  in  the  breweries  and  related  industries.  A  labor  union 
claims  that  "over  half  a  million  men  would  be  thrown  out  of 
employment  by  general  Prohibition,  who,  with  their  families, 
would  make  an  army  of  a  million  human  beings  robbed  of  their 
means  of  existence."  And  the  economist,  again,  may  consider 
what  it  might  mean  to  take  out  the  license  taxes  from  the  city 


PROHIBITION' 


ad  the  hundreds  of  mflfions  of 
the  budget  of  the  whole  country.    It  is  claimed  that  the  brewers, 
maltsters,  and  distillers  pay  out  for  natural  and 
products,  for  labor,  transportation,  etc, 


tfcaf  their  «iggiC4S4lc  investments  foot  up  to  more  than  three 
thousand  miffioos;  and  that  their  taxes  contribute  $550^000^000 
every  year  to  the  public  treasuries.  Can  the  country  afford  to 

cannot  be  solved  in  the  Carrie  Nation  style:  yet  they  are 
ours  here. 

The  Lonely  Drinker  of  tike  Temperance  Town 

Nearer  to  our  psychological  interest  comes  the 
war-cry,  "Prohibition  does  not  prohibit.'*  It  is  too  late  in  the 
day  to  need  to  prove  it  by  statistics :  every  one  UHJWS  it.  No  one 
has  traveled  in  Prohibition  states  who  has  not  seen  the  sickening 
sight  of  drunkards  of  the  worst  order.  The  drug-stores  are 
t«nmf«i  into  *eiv  remunerative  bars,  and  through  hidden  chan- 
nels whisky  and  gin  flood  the  community.  The  figures  of  the 
United  States  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  tefl  the  story 
publicly.  In  a  license  state  like  Massachusetts,  there  exists  one 
retail  liquor  dealer  for  c»eM_y  525  of  population;  in  a  Prohibition 
one  for  every  366.  But  the  secret  story  is  much 
What  is  the  effect?  As  far  as  the  health  of  the 
its  mental  training  in  self-control  and  in 
of  desires  <uc  concerned,  IMC  result  must  be  ilaffif^f  irti* 
on  the  whole,  it  ehminates  the  mild  beverages  in  favor  of  the 
^1  y^jicr  ^pyuiffT?  ?iMi  ^jpp^iiiiiifjc  lonery  ^pyiwih  mv  tor  ^ff liifc  uny  TH 
c^yiai  companv.  T^rtfr  are  psychologically  and  phvsiologicalry  a 
turn  to  the  worse.  It  is  not  the  mild  beer  and  fight  wine  which 
are  secretly  imported;  it  is  much  easier  to  transport  and  hide 
wluaki  and  rum,  with  their  strong  alcoholic  power  and  stronger 
effect  on  the  nerve-cells  of  the  brain.  And  of  all  forms  of 
drinking  none  is  more  rmnoos  Uuii  the  solitary  drink,  as  soon 
as  the  feeling  of  lepugiMiirr  has  been  overcome;  there  is  no 
limit  and  no  inhibition.  If  I  look  back  over  the  last  years,  in 
which  I  often  studied  the  effects  of  suggestion  and  hypnotism  on 
habitual  drinkers,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  it  was  in  most 
cases  an  easy  thing  to  cure  the  social  drinker  of  the  large  cities, 
but  very  hard  to  break  the  Icnefy  drinker  ol  the  \f^ttffr^mtf  IwwiL. 
Of  course.  Prohibition  reduces  somewhat  the  whole  quantity  of 


98  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

consumption,  but  it  withdraws  the  stimulant,  in  most  cases,  where 
it  would  do  the  least  harm  and  intensifies  the  harm  to  the 
organism  where  it  is  most  dangerous. 

Our  Greatest  Danger — Disregard  for  Law 

But  man  is  not  only  a  nervous  system.  Prohibition  forced 
by  a  majority  on  an  unwilling  minority  will  always  remain  a 
living  source  of  the  spirit  of  disregard  for  law.  Yet,  "unwilling" 
minority  is  too  weak  an  epithet ;  the  question  is  of  a  minority 
which  considers  the  arbitrary  rule  undemocratic,  absurd,  immoral, 
and  which  really  believes  that  it  is  justified  in  finding  a  way 
around  a  contemptible  law. 

judges  know  how  rapidly  the  value  of  the  oath  sinks  in 
courts  where  violation  of  the  Prohibition  laws  is  a  frequent 
charge,  and  how  habitual  perjury  becomes  tolerated  by  respected 
people.  The  city  politicians  know  still  better  how  closely  black- 
mail and  corruption  hang  together,  in  the  social  psychology,  with 
the  enforcement  of  laws  that  strike  against  the  beliefs  and  tradi- 
tions of  wider  circles.  The  public  service  becomes  degraded,  the 
public  conscience  becomes  dulled.  And  can  there  be  any  doubt 
that  disregard  of  law  is  the  most  dangerous  psychological  factor 
in  our  present-day  American  civilization?  It  is  not  lynch  law 
which  is  the  worst;  the  crimes  against  life  are  twenty  times  more 
frequent  than  in  Europe,  and  as  for  the  evils  of  commercial  life 
which  have  raised  the  wrath  of  the  whole  well-meaning  nation 
in  late  years,  has  not  disregard  of  law  been  their  real  source? 
In  a  popular  melodrama  the  sheriff  says  solemnly :  "I  stand  here 
for  the  law" ;  and  when  the  other  shouts  in  reply,  "I  stand  for 
common  sense!"  night  after  night  the  public  breaks  out  into 
jubilant  applause.  To  foster  this  immoral  negligence  of  law  by 
fabricating  hasty,  ill-considered  laws  in  a  hysterical  mood,  laws 
which  almost  tempt  toward  a  training  in  violation  of  them,  is 
surely  a  dangerous  experiment  in  social  psychology. 

Are  We  About  to  Prohibit  Meat  and  Tea? 

Hasty  and  hysterical  that  kind  of  law-making  is  indeed. 
Within  a  few  years,  during  which  the  situation  itself  has  not  been 
changed,  during  which  no  new  discoveries  have  proved  the  right 
or  necessity,  during  which  no  experts  have  reached  common  re- 
sults, the  wave  has  swollen  to  a  devastating  flood.  Who  let  it 
loose  ?  Were  the  psychologists  asked  to  decide,  or  the  physicians, 
or  the  physiologists,  or  the  sociologists,  or  any  one  who  has 


PROHIBITION  99 

studied  the  problem  as  a  whole  with  professional  knowledge? 
Certainly  not :  their  commissions  have  hardly  ever  proposed  total 
abstinence.  Of  course,  those  who  rush  on  mean  the  best  as  they 
see  it ;  they  want  to  make  better  men ;  but  can  a  nation  ever  hope 
to  reach  private  morality  by  law  and  thus  to  exclude  all  private 
lying  and  greediness  and  envy  and  ingratitude  and  temper  and 
unfairness  just  as  well  as  intemperance?  Such  unclear  and  vague 
mixing  of  purposes  always  characterizes  hysterical  legislation.  A 
sober  contemplator  must  ask  himself:  What  is  it  to  lead  to  if 
well-meaning,  short-sighted  dilettantes  can  force  legislation  on 
questions  which  demand  the  most  serious  expert  study? 

There  is  growing  throughout  the  land  today  a  conviction — 
which  has  its  core  of  truth — that  many  people  eat  too  much 
meat;  and  not  a  few  see  a  remedy  in  vegetarianism  and 
Fletcherism.  If  this  prejudice  swells  in  a  similar  way,  the 
time  may  come  when  one  state  after  the  other  will  declare 
slaughtering  illegal,  confiscate  the  meat-packing  houses,  and  pro- 
hibit the  poisonous  consumption  of  beef  and  the  killing  of  any 
creature  that  can  look  on  us  with  eyes.  Other  groups  are 
fighting  coffee  and  tea,  and  we  may  finally  land  in  nuts  and 
salads.  Yes,  according  to  this  line  of  legislative  wisdom,  there 
is  no  reason  for  prohibiting  only  alcohol.  Do  I  go  far  beyond 
the  facts  in  asserting  that  in  certain  states  the  same  women 
and  men  who  are  publicly  against  every  use  of  alcohol  are  also 
opposed  to  the  "drugs"  of  the  physicians  and  speak  of  them 
privately  as  poisons?  Not  the  Christian  Scientists  only — in 
intellectual  Boston  thousands  of  educated  women  speak  of  drugs 
and  nervine  as  belonging  to  a  medieval  civilization  which  they 
have  outgrown.  The  same  national  logic  may  thus  lead  us  to 
laws  which  will  prohibit  every  physician  from  using  the  resources 
of  the  drug  store — if  they  have  not  all  simply  to  go  over  to 
osteopathy. 

A  Spring  Flood  of  Emotional  Legislation 

The  question  of  the  liquor  trade  and  Temperance — which  is 
so  widely  different  from  a. hasty  Prohibition — has  engaged  the 
minds  of  all  times  and  of  all  nations,  and  is  studied  everywhere 
today  with  the  means  of  modern  science.  But  this  spring  flood 
of  Prohibition  legislation  which  has  overrun  the  states  shows 
few  signs  of  deeper  connection  with  serious  study  and  fewer 
signs  of  profit  from  the  experiments  of  the  past.  When  the 
Chinese  government  made  laws  against  intemperance  about 


ioo  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

noo  B.C.,  it  can  hardly  have  gone  more  hastily  to  work  than 
the  members  of  this  movement  of  the  twentieth  century  after 
Christ.  It  is  unworthy  of  women  and  men  who  want  to  stand 
for  sobriety  to  allow  themselves  to  become  intoxicated  with 
hysterical  outcries,  when  a  gigantic  national  question  is  to  be 
solved,  a  question  which  can  never  be  solved  until  it  is  solved 
rightly.  A  wrong  decision  must  necessarily  lead  to  a  social 
reaction  which  can  easily  wipe  out  every  previous  gain. 

Progress  is  to  be  hoped  for  only  from  the  most  careful 
analysis  of  all  the  factors  of  this  problem;  yet,  instead,  the 
nation  leaves  it  to  the  unthinking,  emotional  part  of  the  popu- 
lation. In  the  years  of  the  silver  agitation  it  was  a  matter  of 
admiration  to  any  foreigner,  the  wonderful  seriousness  with 
which  large  crowds  listened  in  a  hundred  towns,  evening  after 
evening,  to  long  hours  of  difficult  technical  discussion  on  cur- 
rency; 16  to  i  was  really  discussed  by  the  whole  nation,  and 
arguments  were  arrayed  against  arguments  before  a  decision 
was  reached.  Is  it  necessary  that  the  opposite  method  be  taken 
as  soon  as  this  problem  is  touched — a  question  far  more  complex 
and  difficult  than  the  silver  question,  and  of  far  more  import 
to  the  moral  habits  and  the  development  of  the  nation?  When 
leading  scholars  bring  real  arguments  on  both  sides  of  the 
problem,  their  work  is  buried  in  archives,  and  no  one  is  moved 
to  action.  But  when  a  Chicago  minister  hangs  the  American 
flag  over  his  pulpit,  fastens  a  large  patch  of  black  color  on  it, 
declares  that  the  patch  stands  for  the  liquor  evil  which  smirches 
the  country,  denounces  wildly  the  men  who  spend  for  whisky 
the  money  which  ought  to  buy  medicine  for  sick  children,  and 
then  madly  tears  the  black  cloth  from  the  stars  and  stripes 
and  grinds  it  under  his  heel — then  thousands  rush  out  as  excited 
as  if  they  had  heard  a  convincing  argument.  And  this  super- 
ficiality is  the  more  repellent  because  every  glimpse  below  the 
surface  shows  an  abundance  of  cant  and  hypocrisy  and  search 
for  cheap  fame  and  sensationalism  and  still  more  selfish  motives 
mingled  with  the  whole  movement;  even  the  agitation  itself, 
with  its  threats  of  ruin,  borders  too  often  on  graft  and  black- 
mail and  thus  helps  to  debauch  the  public  life. 

Alcohol  and  the  Brain 

Those  who  seriously  study,  not  merely  the  one  or  the  other 
symptom,  but  the  whole  situation,  can  hardly  doubt  that  the" 
demand  of  true  civilization  is  for  Temperance  and  not  for  absti- 


PROHIBITION     •  ;\ ; ;  ty 

and  that  complete  Prohibition  must  in  the  long  run  work 
against  real  Temperance.  But  nothing  is  more  characteristic 
of  the  hysterical  caprice  of  the  masses  than  the  constant  neglect 
of  this  distinction.  Even  the  smallest  dose  of  alcohol  is  for 
them  nothing  but  evil,  and  triumphantly  they  seize  on  isolated 
statements  of  physiologists  who  acknowledge  that  every  dose  of 
alcohol  has  a  certain  influence  on  the  brain.  This  is  at  once 
given  the  turn  that  every  glass  of  beer  or  wine  "muddles"  Ac 
brain  and  is  therefore  a  sin  against  the  freedom  of  man. 

Certainly  every  glass  of  beer  has  an  influence  on  the  cells 
of  the  brain  and  on  the  mind ;  so  has  every  cup  of  tea  or  coffee, 
every  bit  of  work  and  every  amusement,  every  printed  page  and 
every  spoken  word.  Is  it  certain  that  the  influence  is  harmful 
because  an  overdose  of  the  same  stimulants  is  surely  poisonous? 
Boiling  water  is  most  dangerous  for  the  body  on  account  of  its 
strong  heat:  is  a  bath  in  lukewarm  water  therefore  also  harm- 
ful? To  climb  Mount  Blanc  would  overtax  my  heart:  is  it 
therefore  inadvisable  for  me  to  climb  the  two  nights  to  my 
laboratory?  Of  course,  under  certain  conditions  it  might  be 
wise  to  take  account  of  the  slightest  influences.  Without  being 
harmful,  they  might  be  unsuited  to  a  certain  mental  purpose. 
If  I  were  to  take  a  glass  of  beer  now  in  the  morning,  I  should 
certainly  be  unable  to  write  the  next  page  of  this  essay  with  the 
same  ease;  the  ideas  would  flow  more  slowly.  But  does  that 
indicate  that  I  did  wrong  in  taking  last  night,  after  a  hard 
day's  fatiguing  work,  a  glass  of  sherry  and  a  glass  of  cham- 
pagne at  a  merry  dinner-party,  after  which  nothing  but  light 
conversation  and  music  were  planned  for  the  rest  of  the  even- 
ing? Of  course,  alcohol  before  serious  intellectual  work  dis- 
turbs me;  but  hearing  a  hurdy-gurdy  in  the  street  or  thinking 
of  the  happy  news  which  a  letter  has  just  brought  to  me,  or 
feeling  angry  over  any  incident,  disturbs  me  just  as  much.  It 
is  all  the  same  kind  of  interference;  the  brain  centers  which 
I  use  for  my  intellectual  effort  are  for  a  while  inhibited  and 
thus  unfit  for  the  work  which  I  have  in  hand.  When  the  slight 
anger  has  evaporated,  when  the  pleasurable  excitement  has 
subsided,  when  the  music  is  over,  I  can  gather  my  thoughts 
again,  and  it  is  arbitrary  to  claim  that  the  short  blockade  of 
ideas  was  dangerous,  and  that  I  ought  to  have  avoided  the 
music  or  the  pleasure  or  the  wine. 

Of  course,  if  we  consider,  for  instance,  the  prevention  of 
crime,  we  ought  not  to  forget  that  some  even  of  these  slight 


10?  .SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

inhibitions  may  facilitate  a  rash,  vehement  deed  and  check  cool 
deliberation.  In  times  of  social  excitement,  therefore,  alcohol 
ought  to  be  reduced.  But  again  this  same  effect,  as  far  as  the 
temperate  use  of  alcohol  is  in  question,  may  result  from  many 
other  sources  of  social  unrest.  The  real  danger  begins  every- 
where with  intemperance:  that  is,  with  a  lack  of  that  self- 
discipline  which  is  not  learned  but  lost  under  the  outer  force  of 
Prohibition. 

The  Case  Psychologically 

Psychologically  the  case  stands  thus:  alcohol  has  indeed  an 
inhibitory  influence  on  mind  and  body.  The  feeling  of  excite- 
ment, the  greater  ease  of  motor  impulse,  the  feeling  of  strength 
and  joy,  the  forgetting  of  sorrow  and  pain — all  are  at  bottom 
the  result  of  inhibition;  impulses  are  let  free  because  the  check- 
ing centers  are  inhibited.  But  it  is  absurd  to  claim  from  the 
start  that  all  this  is  bad  and  harmful,  as  if  the  word  inhibition 
meant  destruction  and  lasting  damage.  Harmful  it  is,  bodily  and 
socially,  when  these  changes  become  exaggerated,  when  they  are 
projected  into  such  dimensions  that  vital  interests,  the  care  for 
family  and  honor  and  duty  are  paralyzed;  but  in  the  inhibition 
itself  lies  no  danger.  There  is  not  the  slightest  act  of  attention 
which  does  not  involve  such  inhibition.  If  I  read  in  my  study, 
the  mere  attention  to  my  book  will  inhibit  the  ticking  of  the 
clock  in  my  room  and  the  noise  from  the  street,  and  no  one 
will  call  it  harmful.  As  soon  as  my  attention  increases,  and  I 
read  with  such  passion  that  I  forget  my  engagements  with 
friends  and  my  duties  in  my  office,  I  become  ridiculous  and 
contemptible.  But  the  fact  that  the  unbalanced  attention  makes 
me  by  its  exaggerated  inhibition  quite  unfit  for  my  duties,  is 
no  proof  that  the  slight  inhibition  produced  by  attentive  reading 
ought  to  be  avoided. 

The  inhibition  by  alcohol,  too,  may  have  in  the  right  place  its 
very  desirable  purpose,  and  no  one  ought  to  be  terrified  by 
such  physiological  statements,  even  if  inhibition  is  called  a  par- 
tial paralysis.  Yes,  it  is  partial  paralysis,  but  no  education,  no 
art,  no  politics,  no  religion,  is  possible  without  such  partial 
paralysis.  What  else  are  hope  and  belief  and  enjoyment  and 
enthusiasm  but  a  re-enforcement  of  certain  mental  states,  with 
corresponding  inhibition — that  is,  paralysis — of  the  opposite 
ideas?  If  a  moderate  use  of  alcohol  can  help  in  this  most 


PROHIBITION  103 

tf    —  I.-r-    f^n 

the  little  miseries 
and  of  die  drudgery  of  fife,  and  thus  set  free  and  re-enforce 

make  one  forget  die  frictions  and  pains  and  give  again  the 
feeling  of  unity  and  frktkmkss  power— by  all  means  let  us  use 

who  coupled  Christianity  and  alcohol  as  the  two  great  means 
of  mankind  to  set  us  free  from  pain,  But  nature  provided 

means  to  help  and  to  prepare  for  action. 

And  are  those  who  fancy  that  every  brain  alteration  is  an 
evil  really  «tw^ie  how  other  mfinences  of  our  civilization  ham- 
mer on  the  neurones  and  injure  our  mental  powers  far  beyond 
the  effects  of  a  moderate  use  of  alcohol?  The  vulgar  rag-time 

yellow  press,  die  poker  playing  of  die  men  and  the  bridge 
playing  of  the  women,  the  iiijsiWtsiii  and  superstition  of  the 
new  f<uucy  churches,  the  hysterics  of  the  baseball  g^iitr s,  the 
fascination  of  murder  cases,  the  noise  on  the  Fourth  of  Jury 
and  on  the  364  other  days  of  die  year,  die  wild  chase  for  suc- 
cess; all  are  poison  for  the  brain  and  mind.  They  make  the 
nervous  system  and  the  win  endlessly  more  itfkGl  for  die  diilics 
of  die  day  dian  a  glass  of  lager  beer  on  a  hot  summer's 


Drying  «f  a  Nation  EmotiomaOy 

What  would  result  if  Prohibition  should  really  prohibit, 
qpll  flif  itiliilMtinat*  which  a  ntiM  fK4»  of  beer  and  wine 
to  die  brain  really  be  lost?  The  psychological  outcome  would 
be  twofold:  certain  effects  of  alcohol  whkh  serve  civilization 
would  be  lost;  and,  on  die  other  hand,  much  more  harmful 
substitutions  would  set  in.  To  begm  with:  the  nation  would 
lose  its  chief  means  of  recreation  after  work.  We  know  today 
too  well  that  physical  exercise  and  sport  is  not  real  rest  for  the 
exhausted  bram  cells  The  American  masses  mOik.  h«ud 
throughout  the  day.  The  sharp  physical  and  mental  labor,  the 
constant  huiiy  and  drudgery  produce  a  state  of  tension  and 
irritation  which  demands  before  the  night's  sleep  some  duffing 
inhibition  if  a  dangerous  unrest  is  not  to  set  in.  Alcohol  relieves 
tension,  most  ^r i f ' ^c t •  y • 


104  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

Not  less  important  would  be  the  loss  on.  the  emotional  side. 
Emotional  desire  for  a  life  in  beauty  would  yield  to  the  triviality 
of  usefulness.  Puritanism  has  held  back  the  real  American 
spirit  of  artistic  creation  in  fine  arts  and  music  and  drama: 
Prohibition  without  substitutes  would  crush  still  more  the 
esthetic  spirit  in  the  brain  of  man  and  would  make  beauty  still 
more  the  domain  of  women.  Her  more  responsive  physiological 
constitution  does  not  need  the  artificial  paralysis  of  the  inhibit- 
ing centers.  The  mind  of  the  average  woman  shows  that  lower 
degree  of  checking  power  which  small  alcoholic  doses  produce 
in  the  average  man.  But  just  therefore  she  and  men  of  the 
female  type  cannot  carry  on  alone  the  work  of  the  nation.  A 
national  life  without  the  artificial  inhibitions  of  the  restraining 
centers  becomes  for  the  large  masses  a  matter  of  mere  practical 
calculation  and  righteous  dulness.  Truly  the  German,  the 
Frenchman,  the  Italian  who  enjoys  his  glass  of  light  wine  and 
then  wanders  joyful  and  elated  to  the  masterpieces  of  the  opera, 
serves  humanity  better  than  the  New  Englander  who  drinks  his 
ice-water  and  sits  satisfied  at  the  vaudeville  show,  world-far 
from  real  art.  Better  America  inspired  than  America  sober. 
Can  we  forget  that  in  almost  all  parts  of  the  globe  even 
religious  life  began  with  intoxication  cults?  God  Indra  was  in 
the  wine  for  the  Hindus  and  Dionysius  for  the  Greeks.  It  is 
the  optimistic  exuberance  of  life,  the  emotional  inspiration, 
which  alcohol  brought  into  the  dulness  of  human  days,  and  the 
Jiistory  of  culture  shows  it  on  every  page. 

But  with  the  emotion  dries  up  the  will.  Mere  righteousness 
needs  no  stimulation.  But  the  American  nation  would  never 
have  achieved  its  world  work  if  the  attitude  of  resignation  had 
been  its  national  trait.  Those  pioneers  who  opened  the  land  and 
awoke  to  life  its  resources  were  men  who  longed  for  excitement, 
for  the  intensity  of  life,  for  vividness  of  exprience.  The  nation 
would  not  be  loyal  to  its  tradition  if  it  were  not  to  foster  this 
desire  of  intense  experience :  the  moderate  use  of  alcohol  is  both 
training  in  such  intensified  conscious  experience  and  training  in 
the  control  and  discipline  of  such  states.  The  nation  needs  both, 
and  as  the  child  learns  to  prepare  for  the  work  of  life  by  plays 
and  games,  so  man  is  schooling  himself  for  the  active  and 
effective  life  by  the  temperate  use  of  exciting  beverages  which 
playingly  awake  those  vivid  feelings  of  success.  The  scholar  and 
the  minister  and  a  thousand  other  individuals  may  not  need  this 
training,  but  the  millions,  the  masses,  cannot  prepare  themselves 


PROHIBITION  105 

for  a  national  career  of  effectiveness  if  this  opportunity  is  taken 
from  their  lives.    History  shows  it  abundantly. 

To  be  sure,  all  this  is  but  half  true,  because,  as  we  said,  the 
individual,  and  finally  the  nation,  may  seek  substitutes,  may 
satisfy  the  craving  for  emotional  excitement,  for  will  elation, 
for  intense  experience,  by  other  means  than  the  oldest  and 
most  widely  scattered.  Zealotism  in  religious  belief,  tyranny 
and  cruelty,  sexual  over-indulgence  and  perversion,  gambling 
and  betting,  mysticism  and  superstition,  recklessness  and  adven- 
turousness,  and,  above  all,  senseless  crimes  have  always  been 
the  psychological  means  of  overcoming  the  emptiness  and 
monotony  of  an  unstimulated  life.  They  produce,  just  like 
alcohol,  that  partial  paralysis  and  create  intense  experiences. 
They  thus  take  hold  of  the  masses,  so  long  as  the  social  mind 
is  not  entirely  dried  up,  with  the  necessity  of  a  psychological 
law.  There  is  no  more  dangerous  state  for  a  healthy,  strong 
nation  than  mental  monotony  in  the  life  of  the  masses.  Catholic 
countries  play  to  the  imagination  at  least  through  the  religion, 
monarchic  countries  have  their  own  picturesqueness  and  color, 
America  under  Prohibition  pushes  the  masses  into  gambling  and 
reckless  excitements  and  sexual  disorder  and  money-crazes  and 
criminal  explosions  of  the  mind. 

The  Temperance  Experiment  in  Mohammedanism 

Has   not   history    experimented    sufficiently.      Prohibitionist 
stump  speakers  may  tells  us  that  their  cause  means  the  hitherto 
unheard-of  progress  of  civilization;  the  United     States,  after 
abolishing  slavery  for  mankind,  is  called  on  to  end  also  the 
tyranny  of  alcohol  under  which  humanity  has  suffered  for  ages. 
But  are  there  not  200,000,000  of  Moslems  who  are  obedient  to 
Mohammed's  law,  that  wine  drinking  is  sinful?     What  is  the 
outcome?    Of  course,  it  is  not  inspiring  to  hear  the  boast  of 
the  Moslems  that  the  Christians  bring  whisky  to  Africa  and 
bestialize  the  natives,  while  the   Mohammedans   fight   alcohol   I 
But  aside  from  this,  their  life  goes  on  in  slavery  and  polygamy  j 
and  semi-civilization.     All  the  strong  nations,  all  those  whose  fl 
contributions  were  of  lasting  value  to  the  progress  of  mankind, 
have    profited    from    the    help    of    artificial    stimulation    and 
intoxicants. 

But  every  strong  nation  remained  also  conscious  of  the 
dangers  and  evils  which  result  from  intemperance.  On  the 
whole,  history  shows  that  intemperance  and  abstinence  alike 
T 


io6  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

work  against  the  highest  interests  of  civilization;  temper- 
ance alone  offers  the  most  favorable  psychological  conditions  for 
the  highest  cultural  achievement.  Intemperance  mostly  precedes 
the  strongest  periods  in  the  life  of  a  nation  and  follows  them 
again  as  soon  as  decay  has  set  in.  Temperance,  that  is,  sufficient 
use  of  intoxicants  to  secure  emotional  inspiration  and  volitional 
intensity,  together  with  sufficient  training  in  self -discipline  to 
avoid  their  evils,  always  introduced  the  fullest  blossoming  of 
national  greatness.  Instinctively  the  American  nation  as  a  whole 
is  evidently  striving  for  such  temperance,  but  a  hysterical 
minority  has  at  present  succeeded  in  exaggerating  the  movement 
and  in  transforming  it  into  its  caricature,  Prohibition.  The 
final  result,  of  course,  will  be  Temperance,  since  the  American 
nation  will  not  ultimately  allow  itself  to  become  an  emasculated 
nation  of  dyspeptic  ice-water  drinkers  without  inspiration  and 
energy,  or  permit  vulgar  amusements,  reckless  stock-gambling, 
sensationalism,  adultery,  burglary,  and  murder  to  furnish  the 
excitement  which  the  nerves  of  a  healthy  nation  need. 

The  Securing  of  Temperance 

How  temperance  can  be  secured,  the  experiences  of  the  older 
nations  with  a  similar  psychological  type  of  national  mind  ought 
to  be  decisive.  First  of  all,  the  beverages  of  strongly  alcoholic 
nature  ought  to  be  fought  by  those  of  light  alcoholic  effect. 
The  whisky  of  the  laborers  must  be  fought  by  light  healthy 
beer  and  perhaps  by  light  American  wines.  Further,  a  sys- 
tematic education  in  self-control  must  set  in;  the  drunkard 
must  not  be  tolerated  under  any  circumstances.  Above  all,  the 
social  habits  in  the  sphere  of  drinking  must  be  entirely  reshaped. 
They  belong  to  a  period  where  the  Puritan  spirit  considered  beer 
and  wine  as  sinful  and  relegated  them  to  regions  hidden  from 
decent  eyes.  The  American  saloon  is  the  most  disgusting 
product  of  such  narrowness;  its  dangers  for  politics  and  law, 
health  and  economics,  are  alarming.  The  saloon  must  disappear 
and  can  be  made  to  disappear  perhaps  by  higher  license  taxation 
and  many  other  means.  And  with  it  must  disappear  the  bar 
and  the  habit  of  drinking  standing  and  of  mutual  treating. 
The  restaurant  alone,  with  the  hotel  and  the  club,  is  the  fit 
public  place  where  guests  sitting  at  tables  may  have  beer  and 
wine  with  their  meals  or  after  meals — and  all  controlled  by 
laws  which  absolutely  forbid  the  sale  of  intoxicants  to  certain 


PROHIBITION  107 

groups  of  persons,  to  children,  to  inebriates,  and  so  on.  As  long 
as  drinking  means  to  the  imagination  of  a  considerable  well- 
meaning  minority  of  the  nation  the  present-day  repulsive  life  of 
saloons  and  bars,  the  minority  will  find  it  easy  to  terrorize  and 
to  whip  into  line  the  whole  country.  But  if  those  relics  of  a 
narrow  time  disappear  and  customs  grow  which  spread  the 
spirit  of  geniality  and  friendly  social  intercourse  over  the  foam- 
ing cup,  the  spell  will  be  broken.  Instead  of  being  tyrannized 
over  by  short-sighted  fanatics  on  the  one  side  and  corrupt 
saloon-keepers  on  the  other,  the  n  -tion  will  proceed  with  the 
unanimous  sympathy  of  the  best  citizens  to  firm  temperance 
laws  which  the  sound  instinct  of  the  masses  will  really  respect. 
Training  in  self-control  as  against  recklessness,  training  in 
harmless  hilarity  and  social  enjoyment  as  against  mere  vulgar 
excitement  and  rag-time  pleasures,  training  in  respect  for  law 
as  against  living  under  hysterical  rules  which  cannot  be  executed 
and  which  invite  blackmail,  corruption,  and  habitual  disregard 
of  laws — these  are  indeed  the  most  needed  influences  on  the 
social  mind  of  the  country. 

Williams,   Dr.   Edward   H.     Question  of   Alcohol 
Chap.  V.    What  Shall  We  Do  about  It?1    Dr.  Henry  S.  Williams 

The  scientific  tests  of  recent  years  have  shown  us  pretty 
definitely  what  alcohol  does  to  the  human  body.  It  becomes 
an  increasingly  important  question  as  to  what  humankind  can 
do  to  alcohol. 

There  is  a  general  impression  that  our  ancestors  of  two 
or  three  generations  ago  were  very  heavy  drinkers  and  that 
the  use  of  alcohol  in  our  generation  is  on  the  decline.  Unfor- 
tunately, statistics  do  not  support  the  latter  impression. 

It  appears  that  in  1850  the  annual  per  capita  consumption 
of  alcoholic  beverages  in  the  United  States  was  4.08  gallons; 
in  1860  it  had  risen  to  643  gallons;  in  1870  to  7.70  gallons;  in 
1880  to  10.08  gallons;  in  1800  to  15.53  gallons;  in  1000  to  17.76 
gallons;  in  1910  to  22.19  gallons;  and  in  1913  to  more  than  23 
gallons. 

Seemingly,  then,  the  average  American  in   1913   consumed 

1  An  address  delivered  at  the  National  Conference  on  Race  Better- 
ment, at  Battle  Creek,  Michigan,  January  10,  1914,  by  Dr.  Henry  Smith 
Williams. 


io8  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

more  than  five  times  as  much  liquor  as  did  the  average  American 
of  the  year  1850. 

Stated  in  the  boldest  and  simplest  terms,  that  appears  to  be 
the  net  result  of  sixty  years  of  effort  to  combat  alcohol. 

Legislative  Control  of  the  Liquor  Traffic 

The  facts  just  presented  are  independent  of  any  theory  as  to 
the  control  of  the  liquor  traffic.  They  are  simply  facts  as  to 
production  and  consumption  of  alcoholic  beverages. 

But  it  is  not  without  pertinence  to  consider  these  facts  in 
relation  to  the  legislative  efforts  that  have  been  made  to  control 
the  liquor  traffic.  The  most  important  of  these  legislative  efforts 
is  known  to  every  one  as  the  Prohibition  movement. 

In  1880  Kansas  incorporated  Prohibition  in  its  state  consti- 
tution by  public  vote.  Maine  followed  four  years  later,  and 
North  Dakota  in  1890.  These  three  states  have  remained  loyal 
to  the  Prohibition  laws  throughout  the  intervening  period. 

The  new  wave  of  interest  in  state-wide  Prohibition  which 
has  made  itself  felt  within  very  recent  years  manifested  itself 
in  the  South — the  region  that  had  not  tried  it  before.  Georgia 
and  Oklahoma  legislated  state-wide  Prohibition  in  1907 ;  followed 
in  1908  by  Mississippi  and  in  1909  by  North  Carolina  and 
Tennessee. 

In  South  Carolina  an  attempt  to  control  the  liquor  traffic  was 
made  by  the  passage  of  a  dispensary  law,  through  which  the 
liquor  traffic  was  put  in  the  hands  of  the  county  authorities, 
as  long  ago  as  1892. 

Liquor  legislation  in  the  remaining  states  has  chiefly  taken 
the  form  of  local  option  laws.  So  many  communities  have  local 
option  in  some  of  their  counties  or  cities  that  the  total  popula- 
tion under  "dry"  territory  at  the  present  time  is  estimated  at 
not  short  of  40,000,000  people. 

It  should  be  understood,  however,  that  the  "Prohibition"  laws 
do  not  necessarily  bar  the  shipment  of  liquor  into  "dry"  terri- 
tory, even  though  it  may  not  legally  be  re-sold  there.  To  illus- 
trate this,  let  me  cite  facts  as  to  the  official  shipment  of 
liquor  into  two  regions,  one  of  them  in  Kansas,  a  state  that 
has  been  under  general  Prohibition  for  thirty-three  years,  the 
other  in  North  Carolina,  where  Prohibition  has  been  on  the 
statute  books  since  1909. 

The  Mahin  liquor  law,  passed  by  the  most  recent  legislature 


PROHIBITION  109 

in  Kansas,  requires  railroad  and  express  companies  to  file  icjorts 
of  all  intoxicants  shipped  into  the  state.  Examination  of  the 
files  in  the  office  of  the  comity  clerk  of  Shawnee  County,  in 
which  the  city  of  Topeka  is  located,  shows  that  in  the  month 
of  September,  1913,  the  shipment  of  liquor  officially  reported 
amounted  to  95,561  quarts,  of  which  90/162  quarts  were  received 
in  Topeka — a  city  of  45,000  inhabitants — just  half  a  giHnm 
for  each  man,  woman  and  child.  It  is  reported  that  the  little 
town  of  Tecumseh,  with  a  population  of  less  than  100,  received 
1,627  quarts — equivalent  to  48  gallons  per  capita  per  annum. 

As  to  the  North  Carolina  community,  the  facts  I  would  cite 
relate  to  the  town  of  Asheville.  A  recent  investigation  showed 
that  there  was  shipped  into  Asheville  by  express,  in  gallon  lots, 
no  less  than  4,000  gallons  of  distilled  liquor  in  a  period  of  ten 
days.  This  is  equivalent  to  I  gallon  per  family  for  the  entire 
community— in  ten  days.  Yet  there  is  not  a  saloon  operating  in 
Ashevffle. 

In  the  same  connection  it  may  be  of  interest  to  consider 
the  operation  of  the  dispensary  law  of  South  Carolina.  The 
published  notice  calling  for  bids  for  liquor  issued  by  the  Dis- 
pensary Board  of  Barnwell  County,  December  10,  1913,  chances 
to  be  before  me. 

It  appears  that  the  call  is  made  for  4,610  barrels  of  distilled 
spirits,  and  for  only  576  barrels  of  bottled  ale  and  beer— the 
beer  being  deliverable  in  pint  bottles. 

The  population  of  Barnwell  County  in  1910  was  34^09.  As 
the  population  had  decreased  about  1,300  in  die  preceding 
decade,  we  may  fairly  assume  that  the  present  population  is  not 
more  than  35,000.  On  this  basis  the  distilled  liquor  called  for 
amounts  to  slightly  over  4  gallons  per  capita.  Meantime,  the 
beer  and  ale  amount  to  only  I  quart  per  capita. 

The  influence  of  die  dispensary  law  in  promoting  the  con- 
sumption of  ardent  spirits  and  AiiumSaiumfr  that  of  die  "•n^ffj 
beverages  would  seem  to  be  very  pronounced. 

In  general,  it  would  appear  that  if  our  legislators  of  recent 
years  had  been  in  league  with  the  distiller  they  could  not  have 
served  his  purpose  better. 

Express  Traffic  mto  Prohibition  Territory 

As  further  illustrating  the  general  effect  of  recent  legislation, 
die  finding  of  an  investigation  conducted  by  the  T«f*ff|^f^  Com- 


no  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

merce  Commission,  decision  on  which  was  rendered  June  20, 
1911,  has  interest  and  significance. 

The  investigation  grew  out  of  complaints  about  express 
charges.  The  commission,  in  filing  its  report,  made  comment  on 
the  growth  of  the  mail-order  liquor  business.  This  business,  it 
is  stated,  had  its  beginning  about  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago. 
"At  that  time  it  was  of  small  proportions,  very  few  packages 
being  shipped,  and  those  only  to  a  short  distance.  It  was  the 
spread  of  the  Prohibition  movement  that  gave  vitality  to  this 
character  of  traffic  in  liquor." 

The  report  goes  on  to  state  that  as  local  option  drove  the 
dealers  from  localities  where  they  had  carried  on  retail  business, 
they  settled  on  the  outskirts  of  the  proscribed  territory  and 
shipped  liquor  into  it.  As  the  prohibitive  areas  spread  the  ship- 
pers were  driven  farther  and  farther  back,  but  their  business 
covered  wider  territories  and  increased  largely  in  volume.  With 
state-wide  Prohibition  came  the  interstate  traffic  in  liquor. 

The  report  states  that  it  is  impossible  to  determine  with 
entire  accuracy  the  extent  of  the  business,  but  it  makes  an  esti- 
mate, based  on  figures  presented  by  the  Southern  Express  Com- 
pany, and  reaches  the  conclusion  that  "the  entire  volume  of 
this  traffic,  going  entirely  to  consumers  and  not  to  dealers,  is  in 
excess  of  20,000,000  gallons  per  year." 

It  is  stated  that  the  largest  shipping  point  for  liquor  in  the 
South  is  Jacksonville,  Fla.,  which  "sends  out  between  3,000 
and  4,000  packages  of  I  to  2  gallons  daily,  or  a  total  of 
about  1,500,000  gallons  a  year.  Chattanooga  ships  about 
786,000  gallons;  Richmond,  546,720  gallons;  Petersburg, 
268,128;  Pensacola,  267,760;  New  Orleans,  255,856;  Augusta, 
215,150;  and  Norfolk,  Va.,  Cairo,  111.,  Emporia,  Va.,  Louisville, 
Ky.,  Portsmouth,  Va.,  Roanoke,  Va.,  and  Savannah,  Ga.,  ship 
more  than  100,000  gallons  each  annually.  The  total  annual 
amount  indicated  in  this  restricted  area,  almost  entirely  from 
three  or  four  states  in  the  South,  is  6,085,264  gallons." 

It  is  of  peculiar  interest  to  note  that  three  of  the  chief  ship- 
ping points,  including  Chattanooga  with  its  shipment  of  786,000 
gallons,  are  themselves  located  in  Prohibition  territory. 

A  further  comment  of  the  report  of  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Commission  is  of  sinister  significance: 

The  movement  is  much  more  active  in  the  South  than  in  other  sections 
of  the  country,  partly  because  of  the  extent  of  the  Prohibition  territory  in 


PROHIBITION  HI 

that  section,  partly  because  of  the  large  quantities  of  very  cheap  whisky 
manufactured  and  shipped  there  for  the  consumption  of  the  negro  popula- 
tion. While  it  is  not  the  function  of  this  commission  to  be  influenced  in 
its  conclusions  by  the  moral  aspect  of  the  question,  it  is  impossible  not  to 
recognize  in  this  traffic  one  of  the  important  factors  in  the  race  problem  of 
the  South — the  evil  spirit  back  of  that  problem  in  more  ways  than  one. 

This  very  significant  finding  of  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Commission  may  be  supplemented  by  the  results  of  recent  in- 
vestigations which  show  a  very  rapid  increase  in  the  use  of 
drugs,  notably  cocaine,  in  Prohibition  territory  in  the  South. 
The  negroes  and  poor  whites  who  are  unable  to  secure  money 
enough  to  send  for  liquor,  or  who  have  not  intelligence  and 
enterprise  enough  to  do  so,  find  substitutes  in  various  patent 
medicines,  and  in  particular  in  the  use  of  cocaine,  which  is 
peddled  in  pill-boxes  by  newsboys,  and  otherwise  distributed 
through  numberless  underground  channels. 

This  rapid  extension  of  the  use  of  narcotic  drugs  in  the 
Prohibition  states  of  the  South  is  another  complication  back 
of  the  race  problem.  Legislation  that  has  led,  however  unin- 
tentionally, to  such  results,  is  of  very  doubtful  utility. 

Why  Prohibition  Fails 

The  simple  fact  is  that  legislation  covering  such  a  topic  as 
this  has  no  significance  except  as  it  is  supported  by  the  opinion 
of  an  intelligent  majority  in  the  community.  And  this  principle 
in  itself  sufficiently  explains  the  failure  of  state-wide  Prohibition 
wherever  it  has  been  tried. 

It  may  well  be  doubted  whether  there  is  or  has  been  at  any 
time  a  state  in  the  Union  in  which  a  majority  of  the  voting 
population  were  abstainers  from  the  use  of  alcohol  or  believers 
in  Prohibition  as  applied  to  themselves. 

Prohibition  laws  have  been  passed  because  a  voting  majority 
of  the  citizens  have  thought  it  desirable  to  close  the  saloons, 
hoping  thereby  to  restrict  the  sale  of  liquor  to  the  comparatively 
small  but  very  obnoxious  minority  who  are  made  mentally  and 
morally  aberrant  by  its  use. 

In  the  southern  states,  in  particular,  it  is  scarcely  pretended 
that  a  large  proportion  of  the  population  has  any  intention  or 
desire  to  abstain  from  the  use  of  alcohol.  The  thought  is  simply 
that  by  passing  prohibitory  laws  it  may  be  possible  to  keep 
liquor  from  the  poor  whites  and  negroes.  Care  is  taken  to  have 
the  laws  so  framed  that  the  more  intelligent  and  prosperous 


112  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

members  of  the  community  shall  incur  no  difficulty  in  securing 
whatever  liquor  they  desire. 

Insofar  as  the  intention  of  the  Prohibition  laws  is  to  keep 
liquor  from  individuals  who  are  made  a  social  menace  by  it, 
their  object  is  not  only  justifiable  but  highly  commendable. 
The  fact  that  such  laws  constitute  class  legislation  is  no  valid 
objection  to  them,  when  we  consider  that  the  class  discriminated 
against  is  the  one  that  becomes  a  menace  to  society  through 
the  use  of  alcohol. 

But  the  great  difficult  is  that  prohibitory  legislation  does  not, 
in  point  of  fact,  effect  the  object  thus  contemplated.  The  indi- 
viduals whom  it  is  designed  to  protect  against  their  own 
appetites  are  precisely  the  ones  who  refuse  to  be  thus  protected. 
By  hook  or  by  crook  they  will  secure  alcohol.  The  legalized 
channels  being  closed  through  which  liquor  that  at  least  had 
the  merit  of  purity  might  have  been  obtained,  surreptitious  chan- 
nels are  found  through  which  to  secure  liquor  of  inferior 
quality.  If  the  amount  of  this  is  in  some  cases  restricted,  its 
bad  quality  more  than  balances  the  restricted  quantity. 

Judged  by  Its  Effect 

The  crucial  test  of  this  is  found  in  the  records  of  police 
courts,  prisons,  asylums,  and  almshouses.  I  have  recently  made 
an  extensive  investigation,  the  results  of  which  are  soon  to  be 
published,  which  has  fully  convinced  me  that  the  net  effect  of 
prohibitory  legislation  is  to  increase  the  prevalence  of  crime 
(including  homicide),  insanity,  and  pauperism.  Illicit  stills 
spring  up  in  Prohibition  states;  liquor  of  the  worst  quality  is 
everywhere  dispensed  surreptitiously;  and  the  easily  transported 
drugs,  morphine  and  cocaine,  supplement  the  effects  of  the  bad 
liquor. 

Whether  the  investigation  is  made  in  Maine  and  Kansas, 
which  have  had  state-wide  Prohibition  for  a  generation,  or  in 
Georgia  and  the  other  southern  states  that  have  recently  come 
under  the  alleged  "dry"  regime,  the  results  are  the  same — the 
evil  effects  of  alcohol  are  demonstrably  more  in  evidence  in 
the  Prohibition  territory  than  in  surrounding  territories  where 
an  attempt  to  control  the  traffic  is  carried  out  along  more 
rational  lines. 

In  Nebraska,  for  example,  where  a  "sunset  closing"  law  has 
applied  to  the  saloons  for  a  number  of  years,  the  records  of 
police  courts,  prisons,  asylums,  and  almshouses  are  all  more 


PROHIBITION  113 

favorable   than   the   corresponding   records   of   the    contiguous 
Prohibition  state  of  Kansas. 


New  York  Times.    March  25.  1915 
Liquor  Men's   Sweeping  Claims 

Prohibition  states  show  more  poverty,  more  insanity,  more 
crime,  and  less  church  membership  than  do  "wet"  states.  Such 
are  the  claims  made  by  the  liquor  interests  in  a  statement 
recently  sent  to  the  New  York  Times.  "Prohibition/1  it  is 
declared,  "may  prohibit'  drinking,  but  it  does  not  prohibit  any 
of  the  evils  of  civilization."  Official  figures,  it  is  insisted,  are 
against  the  position  taken  by  the  Prohibitionists  that  the  banish- 
ment of  liquor  is  accompanied  by  greater  prosperity,  more 
religion,  fewer  crimes,  fewer  suicides,  fewer  divorces,  less 
poverty. 

The  liquor  men  further  claim  that  analysis  of  statistics 
proves  it  is  the  rural  population  which  is  chiefly  in  favor  of 
Prohibition,  and  that  the  cities  are  against~It Statistics,  it  is 
declaredr^would  indicate  that  Prohibition  is  an  issue  between 
the  rural  and  urban  population." 

It  is  held  by  the  liquor  men  that  savings  accounts  give  an 
accurate  index  of  the  general  prosperity  and  thrift  of  a  state. 
It  is  stated  that  the  report  of  the  Controller  of  the  Currency 
for  1913  shows  that  the  average  savings  of  each  depositor  in  the 
savings  banks  of  the  United  States  is  $439.07,  and  from  that 
report  the  following  comparison  is  taken  between  certain  "dry" 
and  "wet"  states: 

Prohibition  States 

Avenge 


Kansas   $231-69 

Maine   403.01 

West  Virginia   168.01 

North   Carolina    '. 171.56 

Georgia 239-54 

Mississippi    : 280.97 

Tennessee    262.27 

North  Dakota 207.15 

Oklahoma 152.83 

Virginia    272.77 

Average  for  10  "dry"  state $238.98 


ii4  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

License  States 

Average 
savings 

New    Hampshire    $468. 18 

Rhode  Island   544-93 

New  York  545.QQ 

California 523.48 

Connecticut   497-O2 

Michigan    '443.36 

Montana 522.97 

Nevada   781.39 

Ohio    356.78 

Pennsylvania 423.17 

Average  for  10  "wet"  states   $510.70 

As  to  pauperism,  the  liquor  men  say  that  Census  Bulletin 
120,  "Paupers,  and  Almshouses,  1910,"  shows  that  "dry"  Maine 
had  945  paupers  and  "wet"  Rhode  Island,  the  most  densely 
populated  state  in  the  Union,  had  768;  "dry"  Kansas,  735  and 
"wet"  Minnesota,  with  300,000  more  population,  687. 

Coming  to  insanity,  the  liquor  men  state: 

Kansas  had  2,912  insane  patients  in  her  institutions  at  the  beginning  of 
1910,  and  admitted  905  during  that  year.  Nebraska,  her  next  door  "wet" 
neighbor,  had  1,990  at  the  beginning  of  1910,  and  admitted  to  her  insti- 
tutions 411  during  the  year,  (Census  Bulletin  119).  On  the  two  counts 
Prohibition  Kansas  had  1,000  more  insane  than  license  Nebraska. 

As  to  criminality,  the  liquor  interests  claim  that  certain 
"wet"  states  show  to  much  better  advantage  than  certain  "dry" 
ones.  The  number  of  prisoners  and  juvenile  delinquents  in 
specified  states  is  given  as  follows  for  1910: 

Prohibition  States 

Kansas    1,971 

Georgia 5>o78 

Oklahoma  1,668 

License  States 

Nebraska 789 

Ohio    5,979 

Arkansas    i»36i 

The  statement  says  that  "Ohio,  with  double  the  population 
of  Georgia,  has  but  900  more  prisoners  and  juvenile  delinquents 
than  that  Prohibition  state."  The  following  comparison  is  also 
made: 


PROHIBITION  115 


Jurenfle  delinquents    .........................  434  -32 

Prisoners  cc~:ri::e<i  for  gra-e  h;=k:ie  ........  5.1  39 

For  fcsser  homicide  ..........................  98  44 

For  burglary    ................................  *59  ijo 

For  larceny    .................................  495  «*7 

For  forgery    .................................  87  36 

For  rape    ....................................  85  37 

The  statement  of  the  liquor  men  continues: 

(H  the  6,904  murderers  confined  in  the  United  Stttes  for  grave  homicide, 
2/104  were  in  the  fourteen  states  now  known  as  Prohibition  states,  and 
1,846  of  them  were  in  the  nine  states  wkick  had  Prohibition  before  the 
year  1914.  These  nine  states  hare  less  than  one-sixth  of  the  population  of 
the  United  States,  but  in  1910  they  had  nearly  one-third  of  the  murderers 
who  were  confined  in  the  penitentiaries  of  the  country.  "Dry"  Georgia  led 
the  fist  with  715. 

On  the  question  of  church  membership  the  table  which 
follows  is  given,  the  figures  showing  the  percentage  of  the  popu- 
lation listed  as  church  members  in  the  states  named  : 

Prohibition  States 

Percent 


West  Virginia 280* 

License  States 

New  York 43-7 

5i-3 

54-0 

43-0 

The  statement  adds: 

Some  of  the  other  license  states  that  outrank  the  prohibition  Mates  in 
church  membership  by  far  are  Illinois,  38.3  per  cent;  Ohio,  39.3  per  cent; 
Wisconsin,  44.3  per  cent;  T^onisiana,  50.6  per  cent;  California,  39.1  per  cent. 

The  liquor  men  argue  that  the  claims  made  by  the  Prohi- 
bitionists that  1914  was  a  banner  year  for  the  anti-alcohol  cause 
because  five  states  were  added  to  the  "dry"  column  ignore  the 
fact  that  the  five  states  they  won  had  much  less  than  one-half 
the  population  of  the  three  states  they  lost,  and  thus  Prohibition 
was  beaten  by  a  big  majority  when  the  eight  states  are  grouped. 
The  liquor  statement  says: 


ii6  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

The  year  1914  is  claimed  as  the  banner  year  for  state- wide  Prohibition, 
because  five  states  were  added  to  the  Prohibition  column.  These  states  were 
Virginia,  Arizona,  Colorado,  Oregon  and  Washington.  The  Prohibitionists 
also  made  campaigns  in  Ohio,  California  and  Texas,  but  lost  those  states  by 
overwhelming  majorities.  Looking  at  the  campaign  of  1914  by  state,  the 
Prohibitionists  claim  a  victory  of  two  to  one,  because  they  won  five  states 
and  lost  three.  Look  at  the  states  by  population  and  the  Prohibition  victory 
is  not  so  apparent. 

The  five  states  carried  for  Prohibition  have  a  combined  population  of 
4,879,745.  The  combined  population  of  the  three  states  they  lost  is 
11,041,212.  Ohio  and  California  are  both  urban  states,  in  that  the  majority 
of  the  population  in  each  is  urban.  Texas  is  still  rural,  but  in  the  Texas 
primaries  Prohibition  lost.  The  five  Prohibition  states  are  rural,  with  the 
exception  of  Washington,  in  which  the  urban  and  rural  population  is  about 
equally  divided. 

The  total  "dry"  majority  in  the  state  of  Arizona,  Colorado,  Oregon, 
Virginia  and  Washington  was  100,203.  The  total  "wet"  majority  in  the 
states  of  California,  Ohio,  and  Texas  was  273,757.  The  majority  of  votes 
against  Prohibition  in  the  three  state  that  refused  the  proposition  in  1914 
was  over  twice  as  large  as  the  majority  of  votes  for  the  proposition  in  the 
five  states  that  adopted  Prohibition. 

Between  1850  and  1860  fourteen  states  adopted  Prohibition,  and  between 
1880  and  1890  six  more  states  adopted  Prohibition,  but  sixteen  of  these 
states  afterward  repealed  the  laws.  The  fourteen  states  which  now  have 
Prohibition  are  offset  by  sixteen  states  which  have  tried  Prohibition  and 
abandoned  it  as  a  state-wide  policy.  Here  are  the  states  that  have  had 
Prohibition  and  repealed  the  Prohibition  laws:  Vermont,  New  Hampshire, 
Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  New  York,  Maryland,  Delaware, 
Ohio,  Michigan,  Indiana,  Nebraska,  Illinois,  Iowa,  South  Dakota,  and 
Alabama. 

These  states  that  have  tried  Prohibition  and  returned  to  the  license  sys- 
tem have  a  combined  population  of  38,632,302.  Add  Texas  and  California, 
which  rejected  Prohibition,  and  the  combined  population  which  has  repudi- 
ated the  idea  is  45,058,304.  The  fourteen  states  which  now  have  Prohibition 
laws  have  a  combined  population  of  19,565,706.  If  we  take  states  as  a 
whole,  as  the  Prohibitionists  do  in  claiming  territory  and  population  living 
under  Prohibition  law,  whether  they  like  it  or  not,  twice  as  many  people 
have  tried  and  rejected  the  nostrum  as  those  who  are  now  trying  it,  and 
the  growth  of  the  idea  is  backward  as  well  as  forward.  As  the  rural  states 
have  become  urban,  with  great  cities,  great  industries,  and  great  commerce, 
they  have  abandoned  Prohibition  as  not  adapted  to  their  needs  in  the  way 
of  law  to  be  respected  and  obeyed  by  the  people. 

Further,  the  advocates  of  stimulants  lay  much  emphasis  upon 
their  claim  that  it  is  the  rural  population  of  the  United  States 
which,  speaking  generally,  favors  Prohibition,  while  it  is  the 
urban  population,  also  speaking  generally,  which  opposes  it.  The 
statement  says: 

According  to  Table  28  of  the  United  States  Statistical  Abstracts,  the  five 
"wet"  states  of  California,  Missouri,  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  and  Texas,  that 


PROHIBITION  117 

hare  refused  to  adopt  Prohibition,  kare  an  average  percentage  of  urban 
population  amounting  to  48.9  per  cent.  Tie  average  urban  population  in 
the  fourteen  "dry"  states  is  bat  28.5  per  cent.  The  average  per  cent  of 
urban  population  in  those  states  that  rejected  Prohibition  proposals  is  almost 
twice  the  urban  population  in  the  present  "dry"  states. 

On  Dec.  22,  1914,  Ac  Hobson  amendment  providing  for  national  Pro- 
hibition was  defeated  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  The  significance  of 
the  rote  in  the  House  is  the  division  of  the  rote  according  to  population. 
Of  the  197  members  who  voted  for  the  Hobson  resolution,  129  were  from 
towns  of  less  than  10,000  population,  and  64  of  these  from  Tillages  not 
given  in  the  census  report  of  places  having  2,500  population  and  more. 
There  were  26  more  from  cities  of  less  than  25,000  population,  and  19  from 
cities  of  between  25,000  and  50,000;  10  from  cities  of  over  50,000  and 
less  than  100,000,  and  13  from  cities  of  more  than  100,000. 

Nearly  two-thirds  of  the  vote  in  favor  of  the  resolution  was  from  towns 
of  less  than  10,000  population.  By  the  last  census  report  two-thirds  of  this 
vote  would  be  classed  as  urban,  and  less  than  one-third  of  it  from  towns 
of  more  than  10,000  population. 

Of  the  190  members  who  voted  against  tile  Hobson  resolution,  109  are 
from  cities  of  more  than  25,000  population,  and  68  of  these  from  cities  of 
more  than  100,000  population,  while  there  are  only  25  from  towns  of  less 
fh^**  2,500*  This  vote  would  indicate  IBB&.  ProAioitiofi  is  20  issue  between 
the  rural  and  urban  population,  as  the  representatives  from  the  rural  dis- 
tricts very  generally  voted  for  Prohibition,  and  those  from  the  cities  voted 
against  it. 

The  great  industrial  states  are  urban,  and  few  of  their  representatiTes 
voted  for  Prohibition  in  the  House.  The  representatives  of  the  rural  states, 
and  some  from  the  rural  districts  of  the  urban  states,  made  up  the 
Prohibition  vote  in  the  main. 


Taft,  William  H.   Four  Aspects  of  Chic  Duty.  pp.  46-8 
The  Supremacy  of  the  Law 

The  public  detriment  arising  from  violations  of  law,  followed 
by  immunity  from  prosecutions  or  punishment,  can  hardly  be 
overstated.  It  is,  of  course,  the  duty  of  the  legislator  in  the 
enactment  of  laws  to  consider  the  ease  or  difficulty  with  which, 
by  reason  of  popular  feeling  or  popular  prejudice,  laws  after 
being  enacted  can  be  enforced.  Nothing  is  more  foolish  (sic), 
nothing  more  utterly  at  variance  with  sound  public  policy  than 
to  enact  a  law  which,  by  reason  of  the  conditions  surrounding 
the  community  in  which  it  is  declared  to  be  law,  is  incapable  of 
enforcement.  Such  an  instance  is  sometimes  presented  by  sump- 
tuary laws,  by  which  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  is  prohibited 
under  penalty  in  localities  where  the  public  sentiment  of  the 


ii8  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

immediate  community  does  not  and  will  not  sustain  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  law.  In  such  cases  the  legislation  is  usually  the 
result  of  agitation  by  people  in  the  country  who  are  determined 
to  make  their  fellow  citizens  in  the  city  better.  The  enactment 
of  the  law  comes  through  the  country  representatives,  who  form 
a  majority  of  the  legislature;  but  the  enforcement  of  the  law  is 
among  the  people  who  are  generally  opposed  to  its  enactment,  and 
under  such  circumstances  the  law  is  a  dead  letter.  This  result  is 
the  great  argument  in  favor  of  so  called  local  option,  which  is 
really  an  instrumentality  for  determining  whether  a  law  can  be 
enforced  before  it  is  made  operative.  In  cases  where  the  sale  of 
liquor  cannot  be  prohibited  in  fact,  it  is  far  better  to  regulate 
and  diminish  the  evil  than  to  attempt  to  stamp  it  out.  By  the 
enactment  of  a  drastic  law  and  the  failure  to  enforce  it  there  is 
inj  ected  into  the  public  mind  the  idea  that  laws  are  to  be  observed 
or  violated  according  to  the  will  of  those  affected.  I  need  not 
say  how  altogether  pernicious  such  a  loose  theory  is.  General 
Grant  said  that  the  way  to  secure  the  repeal  of  a  bad  law  was 
to  enforce  it.  But  when  the  part  of  the  community  which  enacts 
the  law  is  not  the  part  affected  by  its  enforcement,  this  is  not  a 
practicable  method.  The  constant  violation  or  neglect  of  any  law 
leads  to  a  demoralized  view  of  all  laws,  and  the  choice  of  laws 
to  be  enforced  then  becomes  as  uncertain  as  the  guess  of  a 
political  executive  in  respect  to  public  opinion  is  likely  to  make 
it.  Such  a  policy  constantly  enlarges  in  the  community  the  class 
of  men  with  whom  the  sacredness  of  law  does  not  exist. 


Summary  of  Investigations  Conducted  by  the  Committee  of 
Fifty.    1893-1903.    pp.  50-3 

Prohibition 

Prohibitory  legislation  has  succeeded  in  abolishing  and  pre- 
venting the  manufacture  on  a  large  scale  of  distilled  and  malt 
liquors  within  the  areas  covered  by  it.  In  districts  where  public 
sentiment  has  been  strongly  in  its  favor  it  has  made  it  hard  to 
obtain  intoxicants,  thereby  removing  temptation  from  the  young 
and  from  persons  disposed  to  alcoholic  excesses.  In  pursuing  its 
main  object — which  is  to  make  the  manufacture  and  sale  of 
intoxicants,  first,  impossible,  or,  secondly,  disreputable  if  pos- 
sible— it  has  incidentally  promoted  the  invention  and  adoption  of 
many  useful  restrictions  on  the  liquor  traffic. 


PROHIBITION  119 

But  prohibitory  legislation  has  failed  to  exclude  intoxicants 
completely  even  from  districts  where  public  sentiment  has  been 
favorable.  In  districts  where  public  sentiment  has  been  adverse 
or  strongly  divided,  the  traffic  in  alcoholic  beverages  has  been 
sometimes  repressed  or  harassed,  but  never  exterminated  or  ren- 
dered unprofitable.  In  Maine  and  Iowa  there  have  always  been 
counties  and  municipalities  in  complete  and  successful  rebellion 
against  the  law.  The  incidental  difficulties  created  by  the  United 
States  revenue  laws,  the  industrial  and  medicinal  demand  for 
alcohol,  and  the  freedom  of  interstate  commerce  have  never  been 
overcome.  Prohibition  has,  of  course,  failed  to  subdue  the 
drinking  passion,  which  will  forever  prompt  resistance  to  all 
restrictive  legislation. 

There  have  been  concomitant  evils  of  prohibitory  legislation. 
The  efforts  to  enforce  it  during  forty  years  past  have  had  some 
unlooked-for  effects  on  public  respect  for  courts,  judicial  pro- 
cedure, oath,  and  law  in  general,  and  for  officers  of  the  law, 
legislatures,  and  public  servants.  The  public  have  seen  law 
defied,  a  whole  generation  of  habitual  law-breakers  schooled  in 
evasion  and  shamelessness,  courts  ineffective  through  the  fluc- 
tuations of  policy,  delays,  perjuries,  negligencies,  and  other 
miscarriages  of  justice,  officers  of  the  law  double-faced  and 
mercenary,  legislators  timid  and  insincere,  candidates  for  office 
hypocritical  and  truckling,  and  office-holders  unfaithful  to 
pledges  and  to  reasonable  public  expectations.  Through  an  agi- 
tation which  has  always  had  a  moral  end,  these  immoralities  have 
been  developed  and  made  conspicuous.  The  liquor  traffic,  being 
very  profitable,  has  been  able,  when  attacked  by  prohibitory  legis- 
lation, to  pay  fines,  bribes,  hush-money,  and  assessments  for 
political  purposes  to  large  amounts.  This  money  has  tended  to 
corrupt  the  lower  courts,  the  police  administration,  political 
organizations,  and  even  the  electorate  itself.  Wherever  the 
voting  force  of  the  liquor  traffic  and  its  allies  is  considerable, 
candidates  for  office  and  office-holders  are  tempted  to  serve  a 
dangerous  trade  interest,  which  is  often  in  antagonism  to  the 
public  interest.  Frequent  yielding  to  this  temptation  causes 
general  degeneration  in  public  life,  breeds  contempt  for  the  pub- 
lic service,  and  of  course  makes  the  service  less  desirable  for 
upright  men.  Again,  the  sight  of  justices,  constables,  and 
informers  enforcing  a  prohibitory  law  far  enough  to  get  from  it 
the  fines  and  fees  which  profit  them,  but  not  far  enough  to  extin- 
guish the  traffic,  and  so  cut  off  the  source  of  their  profits,  is 


120  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

demoralizing  to  society  at  large.  All  legislation  intended  to  put 
restrictions  on  the  liquor  traffic,  except  perhaps  a  simple  tax,  is 
more  or  less  liable  to  these  objections;  but  the  prohibitory  legis- 
lation is  the  worst  of  all  in  these  respects,  because  it  stimulates 
to  the  utmost  the  resistance  of  the  liquor  dealers  and  their 
supporters. 

Of  course  there  are  disputed  effects  of  efforts  at  Prohibition. 
Whether  or  whether  it  has  not  reduced  the  consumption  of 
intoxicants  and  diminished  drunkenness  is  a  matter  of  opinion, 
and  opinions  differ  widely.  No  demonstration  on  either  of  these 
points  has  been  reached,  or  is  now  (1897)  obtainable,  after  more 
than  forty  years  of  observation  and  experience. 

Congressional  Record.   52:519-24.   December,  1914 
National  Prohibition.    Oscar  W.  Underwood 

I  do  not  come  here  today  to  make  an  issue  on  the  question 
as  to  whether  men  should  be  temperate  or  intemperate  in  their 
daily  lives.  I  know  of  no  man  who  would  be  so  false  to  the 
teachings  of  the  mother  who  bore  him  as  to  advocate  intem- 
perance. I  not  only  believe  in  Temperance,  so  far  as  the  con- 
sumption of  liquor  is  concerned,  but  I  believe  in  Temperance  in 
every  walk  of  life.  Men  should  be  temperate  in  their  mental 
attitude  toward  other  men,  as  well  as  temperate  in  the  treatment 
of  their  own  bodies.  • 

But  the  proposed  amendment  does  not  raise  the  issue  of 
Temperance.  It  is  not  a  moral  issue  that  is  before  us.  The 
great  moral  issues  which  have  confronted  the  world  have  not 
been  worked  out  at  the  point  of  the  sword  or  with  the  force 
of  the  governments  behind  them.  The  progress  that  the  world 
has  made  in  morality  comes  from  the  heart,  following  the 
teachings  of  God,  and  not  from  the  force  of  men.  The  issue 
that  is  presented  to  this  House  and  the  country  today  is  a  gov- 
ernmental issue  as  to  whether  or  not  the  enforcement  of  certain 
police  regulations  had  best  be  controlled  by  the  national  govern- 
ment or  left  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  several  states  where 
they  were  placed  by  the  fathers  who  builded  this  republic. 

In  order  that  I  may  not  be  misunderstood,  I  desire  to  say 
in  the  beginning  that  on  the  question  of  the  enforcement  of 


PROHIBITION  121 

Temperance  laws  I  believe  in  local  county  option  so  far  as  my 
own  state  is  concerned,  because  I  believe  that  is  the  best  way 
to  enforce  the  law.  My  objection  to  the  pending  amendment 
is  that  it  is  an  attempt  to  rob  the  states  of  their  jurisdiction 
over  police  matters,  in  part  to  destroy  the  right  of  local  self- 
government,  and  to  establish  a  precedent  that  would  concentrate 
the  power  of  all  government  in  the  government  established  here 
at  Washington. 

I  will  not  call  your  attention  to  the  many  things  which  have 
been  said  in  favor  of  local  self-government  by  the  men  who 
builded  the  federal  constitution,  but  I  do  desire  to  read  to  you 
a  quotation  from  the  author  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
the  author  of  religious  liberty  in  Virginia,  the  man  who  was 
nearer  in  sentiment  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  than  any 
man  who  has  ever  lived  in  our  great  republic. 

In  Mr.  Jefferson's  autobiography,  in  commenting  upon  the 
power  of  the  federal  judges,  he  wrote  a  few  sentences  that 
peculiarly  apply  to  the  question  now  in  hand  I  will  trespass 
on  your  patience  to  read  it  to  you.  He  said: 

It  is  not  enough  that  honest  men  are  appointed  judges.  All  know  the 
influence  of  interest  on  the  mind  of  man,  and  how  unconsciously  his  judg- 
ment is  warped  by  that  influence.  To  this  bias  add  that  of  the  esprit  de 
corps,  of  their  peculiar  maxim  and  creed  that  "it  is  the  office  of  a  good 
judge  to  enlarge  his  jurisdiction,"  and  the  absence  of  responsibility,  and 
how  can  we  expect  impartial  decision  between  the  general  government,  of 
which  they  are  themselves  so  eminent  a  part,  and  an  individual  state,  from 
which  they  have  nothing  to  hope  or  fear?  We  have  seen,  too,  that,  con- 
trary to  all  correct  example,  they  are  in  the  habit  of  going  out  of  the  ques- 
tion before  them,  to  throw  an  anchor  ahead,  and  grapple  further  hold  for 
future  advances  of  power.  They  are  then,  in  fact,  the  corps  of  sappers  and 
miners,  steadily  working  to  undermine  the  independent  rights  of  the  states, 
and  to  consolidate  all  power  in  the  hands  of  that  government  in  which  they 
have  so  important  a  freehold  estate.  But  it  is  not  by  the  consolidation  or 
concentration  of  powers  but  by  their  distribution  that  good  government  is 
effected.  Were  not  this  great  country  already  divided  into  states,  that 
division  must  be  made  that  each  might  do  for  itself  what  concerns  itself 
directly,  and  what  it  can  so  much  better  do  than  a  distant  authority.  Every 
state  again  is  divided  into  counties,  each  to  take  care  of  what  lies  within 
its  local  bounds;  each  county  again  into  townships  or  wards,  to  manage 
minute  details;  and  every  ward  into  farms,  to  be  governed  by  its  individual 
proprietor.  Were"  we  directed  from  Washington  when  to  sow  and  when  to 
reap,  we  should  soon  want  bread. 

It  is  by  this  partition  of  cares,  descending  in  gradation  from  general 
to  particular,  that  the  mass  of  human  affairs  may  be  best  managed  for  the 
good  and  prosperity  of  all. 


122  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

Is  there  any  true  American  whose  soul  responds  to  the 
genius  of  our  republic  who  will  deny  the  truth  of  that  utterance  ? 
Without  intending  any  reflection  on  the  motives  of  the  gentle- 
men who  present  this  resolution,  I  say,  in  the  language  of 
Thomas  Jefferson,  that  by  attempting  to  secure  the  adoption  of 
this  amendment  they  are  "a  corps  of  sappers  and  miners  work- 
ing to  undermine  the  independent  right  of  the  states."  When 
you  abandon  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  constitution 
where  does  it  lead  you?  To  the  Democratic  side  of  the  House 
I  may  say,  Abandon  the  fundamental  principles  of  your  own 
party  and  where  will  you  draw  the  line  in  the  future?  The 
men  who  wrote  this  constitution  that  you  seek  today  in  part  to 
destroy  were  the  men  who  had  given  more  thought  to  the 
necessities  of  a  free  government,  to  the  danger  of  its  over- 
throw, than  any  men  who  have  ever  lived  within  our  republic. 
They  realized  that  when  the  powers  of  the  government  are 
concentrated  in  the  hands  of  one  central  government,  without 
restraint  from  any  source,  that  we  would  ride  to  the  same  fall 
to  which  the  republics  of  Greece,  the  republics  of  Rome,  tBe 
republics  of  every  known  country  in  the  world  ultimately  come. 
And  to  protect  against  that  danger  they  established  a  central 
government  at  Washington  to  control  national  affairs,  to  attend 
to  the  business  where  one  nation  came  in  contact  with  another 
nation.  But  they  reserved  to  the  several  states  the  powers  of 
government  that  affect  the  individual,  his  rights,  his  liberty, 
and  his  happiness.  Shall  we  begin  the  work  of  destruction? 

And  yet,  in  an  idle  hour,  cloaked  in  the  robe  of  Temperance 
— because  all  men  believe  in  Temperance — a  faction  has  arisen 
in  this  republic  that  would  tear  down  the  very  fabric  of  the 
government  itself  and  destroy  the  foundation  stones  on  which 
it  rests. 

It  is  not  alone  the  statesmen  of  the  past  who  have  spoken 
on  this  question.  I  desire  to  read  a  few  sentences  from  an 
editorial  clipped  from  the  Louisville  Courier- Journal,  written  by 
a  Democrat  of  the  Samuel  J.  Tilden  schol  of  Democracy,  who 
believed  in  those  principles  of  our  fathers  that  in  this  day  and 
time  we  are  asked  to  abandon.  Col.  Henry  Watterson  in  an 
editorial  in  the  Courier- Journal  said  this : 

The  Prohibition  movement — a  tyrannous  scheme  to  establish  virtue  and 
morality  by  law,  to  regulate  personal  appetite  and  individual  habit  by  the 


PROHIBITION  133 

win  of  the  majority,  in  embryo  to  resurrect  and  reestablish  the  principle 
ami  affinity  of  Church  and  State — is  quite  as  mischievous  a  delusion  as  any 
of  those  which  have  gone  before  it. 

In  —  counties  which  hare  ordained  Prohibition  two-thirds  of  those 
thus  arraying  themselves  at  Ac  polls  beUered  they  were  voting  for  tem- 
perance against  intemperance,  whereas,  which  the  event  win  prove  they 
were  voting  against  lawful  procedure  and  jtfst  taxation  on  the  one  hand 
and  in  favor  of  outlawry  and  no  taxation  on  Ac  other  hand. 

If  Prohibition  prohibited,  if  law  reached  morals,  the  argument  in  favor 
of  drastic  legislation  would  be  cogent,  indeed.  But  the  actual  experience 
had  everywhere  shows  exactly  the  contrary.  The  scheme  is  the  offspring  of 
insanity.  It  would  nowise  accomplish  the  ends  it  aims  at.  It 
simply  ruin  whole  classes  and  regions,  reduce  values  and  increase 
taxes,  leaving  the  drink  evil  untouched  in  its  nature  to  readjust  itself  to 
changed  conditions,  as  it  has  done  ciei>wmeie  that  Prohibition  has  laid  its 


The  fact  cannot  be  successfully  contradicted  that  Prohi- 
bition established  by  law  does  not  produce  Temperance  or  stop 
the  liquor  habit  where  die  public  sentiment  of  the  local  com- 
munity does  not  sustain  the  law.  It  merely  makes  men  outlaws 
instead  of  encouraging  a  respect  for  law  and  order.  I  contend 
that  there  is  no  law  written  on  die  statute  books  that  is  stronger 
than  the  sentiment  of  the  jury  in  the  jury  box.  In  the  last  anal- 
ysis the  law  in  this  land  is  enforced  in  the  jury  box.  In  most  of 
the  states  of  the  Union,  if  not  all,  die  jury  is  drawn  from  die 
jurisdiction  of  the  county  within  the  state,  and  when  public  senti- 
ment in  die  county  is  adverse  to  the  statute  men  who  go  into  that 
jury  box,  or  at  least  I  in  12,  will  be  found  who  are  not  in  favor 
of  enforcing  the  law,  and  you  will  have  a  law  on  the  statute 
books  which,  instead  of  producing  the  desired  results,  brings 
about  a  condition  that  puts  all  law  into  contempt  and  substitutes 
outlawry  for  a  just  administration  of  the  law  of  the  land.  In 
fact,  the  resolution  itself  is  not  for  Temperance.  It  does  not 
contend  or  propose  that  men  shall  be  forced  to  cease  drinking 
liquor.  It  merely  proposes  that  it  shall  be  unlawful  to  sell 
liquor.  Nothing  in  this  amendment  would  prevent  any  man 
from  manufacturing  his  own  liquor  and  drinking  it  when  he 
pleased.  It  is  not  difficult  to  manufacture  whisky.  If  die  law 
does  not  prohibit  it,  it  can  be  manufactured  on  the  cooking 
stove;  and  I  say  to  my  friends  from  the  South  that  if  you 
merely  want  to  prohibit  die  sale  of  liquor  and  not  prohibit  its 
use,  and  that  is  as  far  as  you  are  going,  then,  so  far  as  this 
resolution  is  concerned,  yon  encourage  blind-tigers  throughout 


124  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

the  length  and  breadth  of  our  country.  Of  course  the  answer  to 
that  would  be  that  the  state  laws  would  prohibit,  but  you  are 
proposing  to  go  beyond  the  state  law.  Some  gentlemen  have 
argued  that  you  can  enforce  Prohibition  by  the  state  law  and 
by  the  federal  law. 

In  physics  I  have  been  taught  that  two  bodies  cannot  occupy 
the  same  space  at  the  same  time  and  in  the  science  of  govern- 
ment I  have  been  taught  that  two  governments  cannot  exercise 
jurisdiction  over  the  same  territory  for  the  punishment  of  the 
same  crime  at  the  same  time.  Possibly  some  of  the  advocates 
of  this  resolution  may  want  to  go  so  far  as  to  advocate  that  a 
man  shall  be  twice  tried  for  one  crime — that  he  shall  be  tried 
in  a  state  court  and  tried  in  a  federal  court,  but  I  do  not 
believe  that  such  a  proposition  would  meet  with  the  approval  of 
the  sane  judgment  of  the  American  people. 

This  question  cannot  be  disposed  of  without  considering  it 
from  the  financial  side.  It  is  true  that  the  advocates  of  the 
resolution,  when  you  say  that  it  will  destroy  property  or  wipe 
out  taxation,  scoff  and  jeer  at  the  proposition,  but  will  the 
American  people  scoff  and  jeer  at  a  question  of  confiscation 
when  they  really  understand  what  is  intended? 

First,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  what  it  will  cost  the 
American  people  in  the  way  of  taxes  to  write  this  resolution  on 
the  statute  books.  The  receipts  of  the  federal  government  in 
Washington  during  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1914,  from 
ordinary  sources,  were  as  follows : 

Receipts  into  the  General  Fund,  Including  Various  Trust-Fund 
Receipts,  but  Excluding  Postal  Revenues 

Customs   $292,320,014.51 

Internal  revenue — 

Ordinary    $308,659,732.56 

Corporation  excise  tax 10,671,077.22 

Corporation  income  tax   32,456,662.67 

Individual  income  tax   28,253,534.85 

380,041,007.30 

Sales  of  public  lands   2,571,774-77 

Miscellaneous   59,74O,370.i3 


Total  ordinary  receipts   $734,673,166.71 

This  table  shows  that  the  total  ordinary  receipts  of  the  gov- 
ernment for  the  fiscal  year  1914  amounted  to  $734,673,166.71. 
Of  this  amount  $245,400,000,  or  over  33  per  cent  of  it,  was 


PROHIBITION  125 

received  from  the  internal  revenue  and  customs  taxes  on  malt 
liquors,  spirits,  and  wines. 

Of  the  taxes  levied  on  liquors  $??rV,7no,nno  were  received 
i  piyni  ppf  s?rtTjfti  fif  y^mpty  g^iij  y Ttfir "?novooo  from,  customs*  iD2lcxEU£  t"*? 
total  of  $245^400,000.  Aside  from  die  federal  revenue,  I  find 
that  the  revenue  derived  by  die  tf  Jrt*i-  from  licenses  amounted 
to  $21,000,000,  fry*  a'n'MfajS^y  ftj^fHWufffffli  and  from  Mmnpoi  jjf d 
places  having  a  population  of  2^00  and  over  $52^)00,000,  or  a 
tots  i  thsftt  the  ststcs  ocnvcd  tfnyn  uQiior  i^'QCf^scs  ox  SyQJuOOyOOOL 
This  makes  the  total  in  the  United  States  from  all  sources 
$325^00,000. 

I  have  a  table,  compiled  by  the  Census  Bureau,  showing  the 
exact  amount  of  revenue  from  liquor  licenses  derived  from  each 
state,  which  I  particularly  wish  to  call  to  your  attention.  The 
amount  received  in  the  various  states  is  given  on  page  126. 

Mr.  Speaker,  if  all  revenue  derived  from  die  sale  of  liquor 
should  be  destroyed  to  accomplish  a  good  purpose,  it  might  be 
weQ  to  destroy  this  source  of  revenue  and  place  the  burden  of 
taxation  elsewhere,  but  I  contend  that  if  yon  adopt  the  ptadiug 
resolution  yon  will  not  accomplish  the  end  you  aim  at,  real 
Temperance,  but  you  win  transpose  law  into  license  and  estab- 
lish national  tyranny  in  place  of  local  justice.  YOB  would  ant 
prevent  the  drinking  of  liquor  or  the  evils  that  glow  out.  of  it, 
but  yon  would  destroy  the  supervision  of  the  liquor  traffic  by 
local  authority.  You  would  destroy  this  iivcauc.  and  the  evils 
of  inlcHipf  ranff  would  still  exist.  Your  pcoplt  would  have  to 
bear  the  burdens  of  taxation  in  some  other  way.  Are  the  people 
of  New  York  state,  where  I  understand  they  do  not  have  a 
direct  tax  on  propci  ly  and  ihrtr  taxes  are  *  -B  *tffl  indirectly, 
willing  to  agree  to  a  resolution  that  would  MUJJkr  $  1 7,000,000 
of  revenue  for  a  theory,  and  place  that  amount  of  taxes  on  the 
land  of  die  people?  That  is  die  issue  for  die  American  people 
to  consider.  Why,  I  can  illustrate  that  in  my  own  state  without 
in  any  way  intending  to  reflect  on  the  high  morals  and  character 
of  the  people  of  the  great  state  of  Georgia.  I  wish  to  call  your 
attention  to  die  fact  that  in  Alabama  we  have  local  county 
nptirm  There  are  nine  counties  hi  which  liquor  is  sold  out  of 
sixty-seven  counties.  The  people  of  Alabama  obtain  a  revenue  of 
$585,645  from  licenses  in  diat  state.  In  Georgia  they  have  state- 
wide Prohibition  and  no  revenue  derived,  and  yet  there  is  as 


126 


SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 


Receipts  from  Liquor  Licenses, 


State 


Total 


State 


County 


Incorpo- 
rated places 
having  a 
population 
of  2, 500  and 

over  and 
school  dis- 
tricts 


585,645 

26,111 

199,705 

C31»y33,«"i 

359,829 

Arizona     

258,442 

1,500 

158,876 

98,066 

Arkansas    

440,441 

87,i35 

133,120 

240,186 

California  

2,771,402 

216,602 

2,554,800 

672,440 

56,838 

63,051 

552,551 

Connecticut    

949,639 

102,486 

847,153 

Delaware    

76,789 

76,789 

District  of  Columbia    

436,790 

C1) 

436,790 

Florida   

511,029 

157,800 

65,387 

287,842 

Idaho    

214,308 

14,485 

115,150 

84,673 

Illinois    

9,727,827 

19,225 

9,708,602 

Indiana   

,404,944 

1,404,944 

Iowa    

,118,675 

494,976 

623,699 

Kentucky    

,338,526 

581,007 

757,519 

Louisiana   

,524,689 

450,700 

240,241 

833,748 

Maryland    

,728,435 

427,468 

137,843 

1,163,124 

Massachusetts   

3,274,005 

827,535 

2,446,470 

Michigan    

1,991,568 

24,542 

914,922 

1,052,104 

1,797,142 

54,i43 

163,604 

1,579,395 

Missouri    

4,3i9,oi5 

1,504,906 

907,068 

1,907,041 

Montana  

545,767 

(2) 

374,204 

171,563 

Nebraska    

855,143 

23,350 

83L793 

Nevada   

152,316 

50,640 

78,627 

23,049 

New  Hampshire  

264,014 

135,516 

128,498 

2,625,414 

2,625,414 

New  Mexico   

136,594 

53,155 

83,439 

New  York   

17,374,408 

9,401,083 

7,973,325 

Ohio    

7,975,230 

2,542,533 

983,898 

4,448,799 

Oregon    

570,750 

22,089 

548,661 

6,109,949 

1,800,740 

423,357 

3,885,852 

Rhode  Island    

678,750 

170,616 

O 

508,134 

South  Dakota   

257,485 

163,735 

93,750 

Tennessee  

590,121 

590,121 

Texas    

1,303,895 

687,000 

380,356 

236,539 

Utah    

330,557 

9,523 

321,034 

Vermont   

78,518 

74,118 

4,400 

Virginia    

975,529 

529,698 

445,831 

Washington    

if  "7,573 

206,708 

39,944 

870,921 

West   Virginia    

922,072 

648,641 

.  . 

273,431 

Wisconsin  

1,363,591 

i,363,59i 

Wyoming    

178,441 

178,441 

1  No  county  organization 

.                                          *  Not  reported 

PROHIBITION  127 

much  liquor  drunk  in  the  state  of  Georgia  as  in  the  state  of 
Alabama. 

Some  of  the  advocates  of  this  resolution  laugh  when  it  is 
suggested  to  them  that  should  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  be  amended  in  this  particular  it  would  confiscate  millions 
of  dollars  of  property  of  law-abiding  citizens.  Scorn  may  be 
the  answer  of  the  fanatic,  but  the  just  man  will  consider  the 
facts.  He  will  realize  that  a  sentiment  that  may  destroy  his 
neighbor's  property  today  may  carry  his  own  to  Ac  shambles 
tomorrow. 

In  1909  there  was  invested  in  the  liquor  industry  of  the 
United  States  $771,516^00.  At  that  time  this  industry  employed 
77,779  persons,  their  annual  wage  amounting  to  $70,907,000. 

The  following  table  shows  the  number  of  persons  engaged 
in  the  liquor  industry,  the  capital  employed,  and  the  salaries  and 
wages  paid  in  1909: 

Liquors 
Distilled  Malt  Vinous 


Total  ...........................  8,3*8  66,725 

Proprietors  and  firm  members  ----  563  639  236 

Salaried  employees   ..............  1,335  «.5»7  579 

Wage  earners  (arerage  number)   ..  6^30  54.579  i»oii 

Capital  .............................  $72,450,000  $671,158,000  $27,008,000 

Salaries  ............................  1,988,000  22,804,000  863,000 

Wages  .............................  3.074.000  41,206,000  972,000 

For  one  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  when  property  is 
destroyed,  if  it  is  destroyed  for  the  public  good,  that  the  owner 
of  that  property  should  not  receive  just  compensation,  nor  do 
I  believe  that  the  sentiment  of  the  American  people  is  in  accord 
with  die  declarations  we  have  heard  from  some  of  the  pro- 
ponents of  this  resolution  favoring  destruction  of  property 
without  compensation  by  law. 

It  is  contended  that  Prohibition  produces  Temperance  where 
it  is  on  the  statute  books,  but  I  find  on  an  examination  of  the 
bulletins  issued  by  the  Bureau  of  the  Census  that  the  improved 
conditions  which  we  may  naturally  expect  to  find  in  the  lives  of 
men  and  women  who  practice  real  Temperance  are  not  found 
to  predominate  in  the  states  where  Prohibition  laws  have  been 
on  the  statute  books  for  many  years  as  compared  to  those  states 


128 


SELECTED   ARTICLES   ON 


where  liquor  is  sold  under  a  license  system  or  where  Temper- 
ance laws  are  controlled  by  the  sentiment  of  the  local 
communities. 

Census  Bulletin  112,  on  mortality  statistics  for  1911,  at 
page  77,  shows  the  death  rate  per  100,000  population  from  violent 
deaths,  excluding  suicide,  for  certain  cities  in  specified  states. 

The  census  investigation  in  1911  shows  that  the  average 
death  rate  by  violence,  exclusive  of  suicide,  for  cities  investi- 
gated in  twenty-nine  states  in  which  liquor  was  lawfully  sold 
was  lower  than  that  of  Kansas,  for  many  years  a  Prohibition 
state.  In  three  it  was  higher.  In  six  Prohibition  states  investi- 
gated, Tennessee  and  West  Virginia  show  a  higher  death  rate 
than  Kansas. 

The  following  table  is  compiled  from  Census  Bulletin  No. 
112,  on  mortality  statistics  for  1911,  and  shows  the  death  rate 
per  100,000  population  from  violent  deaths,  excluding  suicide, 
for  certain  cities  in  specified  states. 

Death  Rate  per  100,000  Population  from  Violent  Deaths 
(Excluding  Suicide) 

Liquor-license 

states  having  an 

average  death  rate — 

Prohi- 

Lower  Higher         bition 

than  than  states 

State  Kansas          Kansas      (average) 

Entire  registration  area 91.1 

All  registration  cities  95.7 

Registration  cities  in — 

Kansas . .  123.0 

Alabama    141.2 

California   99.2 

Colorado    79-° 

Connecticut    93-i 

Delaware   76.6 

District  of  Columbia  79-7 

Florida    152.7 

Georgia   . .  120.0 

Illinois   93.8 

Indiana    94.  i 

Kentucky    113.1 

Louisiana    1 14.6 

Maine ..  98.3 

Maryland 85.5 

Massachusetts 94.5 


PROHIBITION  129 

Lkp 


Pro*- 

Lower  Higher         bition 

than  than  states 

State  Kansas          Kansas      (arerage) 

Michigan   82.6 

Minnesota   74-o 

Missouri 102.2 

Montana    126.2 

Nebraska   88.8 

New  Hampshire 110.2 

New  Jersey 06-6 

New  York 88.3  .. 

North  Carolina ..  ..  «3-6 

Ohio   103-4 

Oregon 82.8 

Pennsylvania    105.8 

Rhode  Island 87^ 

Carolina    "4-9 

..  155-4 

Texas   121.6 

Utah 85.7 

Vermont 83.5 

Virginia 107-9 

Washington 78-8 

West  Virginia ..  159-6 

^?ifimr jiffiiti  n  9&  n 

Bulletin  112  of  the  Bureau  of  the  Census,  on  mortality  sta- 
tistics for  1911,  at  page  77,  shows  the  death  rate  from  suicide 
per  100,000  population  for  certain  cities  in  specified  states. 

The  table  shows  that  cities  were  investigated  in  thirty-eight 
states.  Twenty  states  show  a  lower  average  death  rate  from 
suicide  where  liquor  is  lawfully  sold  than  Kansas.  Eleven  show 
a  higher  death  rate  than  Kansas.  Of  the  Prohibition  states 
West  Virginia  was  the  only  one  having  a  higher  average  rate 
than  Kansas. 

The  following  table  is  compiled  from  Census  Bulletin  No. 
112,  on  mortality  statistics  for  1911,  and  shows  the  death  rate 
from  suicide  per  100,000  population  for  certain  cities  in  specified 
states : 


130 


SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 


Death  Rate  Per  100,000  Population  from  Suicide 


State 

Entire   registration   area 16.2 

All  registration  cities  in  area 19.3 

Registration  cities  in — 

Kansas 

Alabama    1 1.9 

California   

Colorado    

Connecticut    18.9 

Delaware  15.8 

District  of  Columbia 

Florida    18.0 

Georgia   

Indiana 

Illinois   21.7 

Kentucky    16.1 

Louisiana 13.6 

Maine    

Maryland    1 7.7 

Massachusetts    13.1 

Michigan    18.3 

Minnesota   18.7 

Missouri 

Montana    

Nebraska    

New   Hampshire    12.4 

New  Jersey 17.0 

New  York  16.8 

North  Carolina 

Ohio    20.3 

Oregon   

Pennsylvania    15.6 

Rhode  Island   1 1.8 

South  Carolina 5.1 

Tennessee    

Texas    

Utah    

Vermont J22.o 

Virginia    14.6 

Washington    

West  Virginia   

Wisconsin    18.9 


Liquor-license 

states  having  an 

average  death  rate — 

Prohi- 

Lower  Higher         bition 

than  than  states 

Kansas         Kansas      (average) 


35-2 
28.5 


26.1 


24.3 


12.4 


13.6 


32.8 
49-3 
28.0 


34-6 


29.2 
34-0 


29.3 


7.1 


16.4 


26.2 


1  Same  as  Kansas. 


PROHIBITION  131 

Census  Bulletin  No.  96,  on  Marriage  and  Divorce,  page  42, 
shows  the  annual  average  divorce  rate  per  100,000  married 
population,  by  states,  in  1900. 

It  shows  that  twenty-seven  states  in  which  liquor  is  lawfully 
sold  have  a  lower  divorce  rate  than  Kansas,  and  that  thirteen 
states  in  which  liquor  is  lawfully  sold  have  a  higher  rate.  Okla- 
homa is  the  only  Prohibition  state  having  a  higher  divorce  rate 
than  Kansas. 

The  following  table  is  compiled  from  Census  Bulletin  No.  06, 
on  Marriage  and  Divorce,  and  shows  the  average  annual  divorce 
rate  per  100,000  married  population,  by  states: 

Annual  Divorce  Rate  per  100,000  Married  Population 


•Me*  having  an 

arerage  divorce  rate 

Lower  Higher 

(average) 


75 


132 


SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 


Liquor-license 

states  having  an 

average  divorce  rate 

Prqhi- 

Lower  Higher         bition 

than  than  states 

State  Kansas          Kansas      (average) 

North  Central  division — continued 

Iowa 246 

Missouri    281 

North  Dakota    . .  268 

South   Dakota    270 

Nebraska    226 

South   Central   division: 

Kentucky     237 

Tennessee . .  261 

Alabama    208 

Mississippi    . .  225 

Louisiana 127 

Arkansas 399 

Indian  Territory 326 

Oklahoma    . .  346 

Texas 391 

Western   division: 

Montana   497 

Idaho    347 

Wyoming    361 

Colorado   409 

New  Mexico 193 

Arizona   344 

Utah  274 

Nevada    315 

Washington    513 

Oregon    368 

California 297 


Census  Bulletin  No.  96,  on  Marriage  and  Divorce,  page  47, 
shows  the  number  of  divorces  granted  to  wives  because  of  the 
drunkenness  of  the  husband. 

This  table  shows  that  during  the  period  from  1887  to  1906 
there  were  33,080  divorces  granted  to  wives  because  of  their 
husband's  drunkenness.  During  this  time  the  state  of  Kansas 
granted  more  divorces  on  account  of  the  drunkenness  of  the 
husband  than  twenty-five  states  in  which  liquor  was  lawfully 
sold.  Maine  was  the  only  Prohibition  state  granting  more 
divorces  for  drunkenness  of  the  husband  than  Kansas. 

The  following  table  is  compiled  from  Census  Bulletin  No.  96, 
on  Marriage  and  Divorce,  and  shows  the  number  of  divorces 


PROHIBITION  133 

granted  from  1887  to  1906  to  wires  because  of  the 


Divorces,  1887  to  1906,  Granted  to  Wms  because  of  the 
Drunkenness  of  ike  Husband,  by  States 


Xew  Ywfc 


:* 


Georgia  .................................  .-  «8 

Florida  ...............................     166 

Sort*  Central 


..  ~.*-Z 

7.993 

485 

65* 


2.7*9 


113 


Kentucky 671 

..        447 


2lS 
130 


155 

161 
148 

115 


134 


SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 


State 
Western  division — continued 

Idaho 70 

Wyoming   32 

Colorado 99 

New  Mexico   42 

Arizona 72 

Utah    83 

Nevada  20 

Washington   566 

Oregon    326 

California 


Liquor-license 

states  having  a 

divorce  rate — 

Less  than     More  than 

Kansas          Kansas 


Prohi- 
bition 
states 
(number) 


768 


The  annual  report  of  the  secretary  of  the  Treasury  for  the 
fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  1913,  at  page  460,  shows  the  report 
of  the  comptroller  of  the  currency  with  regard  to  the  average 
saving  of  each  depositor  in  the  savings  banks  of  the  United 
States  in  1913. 

This  report  shows  that  in  twenty-seven  states  in  which 
liquor  is  lawfully  sold  the  average  saving  per  depositor  is 
higher  than  that  of  the  average  depositor  in  Kansas.  In  nine 
states  where  liquor  is  lawfully  sold  the  average  saving  is  lower 
than  in  Kansas.  Four  Prohibition  states  show  a  higher  average 
than  Kansas  and  four  a  lower  average. 

The  following  table  shows  the  average  savings  for  each 
depositor  in  the  savings  banks  of  the  United  States,  by  states, 
in  1913: 

Average  Savings  for  Each  Depositor  in  the  Savings  Banks  of 
the  United  States,  by  States,  in 


State 
Average  in  United  States  

Liquor-license 
states  having  an 
average  saving 
per  depositor  — 
Lower        Higher 
than           than 
Kansas       Kansas 
.  .           $439.07 

Prohi- 
bition 
states 
(average 
saving 
per  de- 
positor.) 

Kansas    

$231.69 

New  England  states: 
Maine              

403.01 

468  18 

411  OS 

382  88 

497.02 

PROHIBITION  135 


136 


SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 


Census  Bulletin  No.  103,  on  religious  bodies,  1906,  at  page  40, 
shows  the  relation  of  church  membership  to  the  population  in 
1906  by  states. 

The  religious-body  investigation  of  1906  shows  the  following 
interesting  facts:.  That  out  of  forty-nine  state  investigations 
only  four  states  had  a  lower  church  membership  in  proportion 
to  the  population  than  Kansas.  Two  of  tKese  states — Wyoming 
and  Oregon — were  states  in  which  liquor  was  sold  and  two 
Prohibition  states — West  Virginia  and  Oklahoma.  Thirty-eight 
states  in  which  liquor  is  lawfully  sold  had  a  larger  percentage 
church  membership  than  Kansas. 

The  following  table  shows  the  relationship  of  church  mem- 
bership to  the  population  in  1906  by  states : 

Percentage  of  Church  Membership  to  Total  Population  in  1906, 
by  States 


Liquor-license 

states  having  a 

percentage  church 

membership — 


Lower 
than 
State  Kansas 

Continental  United  States 

Kansas   

North  Atlantic  division: 

Maine 

New  Hampshire 

Vermont    

Massachusetts 

Rhode  Island 

Connecticut 

New  York 

New  Jersey 

Pennsylvania    

South  Atlantic  division: 

Delaware 

Maryland 

District  of  Columbia 

Virginia 

West  Virginia 

North  Carolina 

South  Carolina 

Georgia    

Florida 

North  Central  division: 

Ohio 

Indiana    . 


Higher 

than 
Kansas 

39-1 


44.0 
42.0 
5L3 
54-0 
50.0 
43-7 
39-0 
43-0 

36.6 

37-1 
44.4 
40.2 


45-8 
35-2 

39-3 
34-6 


Prohi- 
bition 
states 
(percent- 
age) 


29.8 


40.0 


42.1 


PROHIBITION  137 


Profci- 


"•: 


The  Solution  of  ike  Issue 

In  conclusion,  let  me  say  that  tins  is  not  a  question  of  Tem- 
perance; it  is  not  a  moral  question;  it  is  merely  a  question  as 
to  whether  you  are  going  to  substitute  for  the  authoiity  of  your 
state  to  enforce  its  laws  against  your  own  people  the  authority 
of  the  federal  government,  that  may  or  may  not  be  in  sympathy 
with  the  sentiment,  the  rharartrr,  and  the  history  of  your 
people.  In  my  judgment,  there  is  but  one  way  to  work  this 
question  out,  and  that  is  by  education  sustained  by  local  laws. 
The  one  govcimiifiil  in  the  world  most  without  Prohibition 
the  **jnjutf-  oi  (jciukoiiy.  There  IBB  been  a  greater 


138  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

growth  of  Temperance  societies  in  Germany  than  in  our  own 
country  where  we  have  more  Prohibition  statutes  than  any 
other  civilized  land. 

Let  our  judgment  be  guided  by  the  light  of  experience,  and 
we  have  had  much  experience  in  attempting  to  secure  Temper- 
ance by  Prohibition  legislation.  That  experience  has  proved 
that,  as  a  rule,  the  smaller  the  unit  of  local  option  the  more 
effectively  has  the  sale  of  liquor  been  prevented  and  the  greatest 
progress  to  complete  sobriety  obtained. 

Let  us  not  forget  that  every  law  intended  to  regulate  the 
sale  of  liquor  is  a  farce  when  it  does  not  embody  the  sentiment 
of  the  community  in  which  it  is  to  be  enforced.  It  is  a  breeder 
of  fraud  and  corruption  and  of  contempt  for  constituted 
authority. 

California  Official 

Argument  Against  Prohibition,  1914.    William  .Schuldt 

There  are  three  objections  to  this  amendment: 
First — Prohibition  is  contrary  to  sound  political  principles. 
The  best  government,  as  all  authorities  agree,  is  that  which  most 
liberally  lets  its  citizens  alone,  constraining  them  in  nowise  incon- 
sistent with  common  sense  ideas  of  perfect  freedom.  Political 
science  teaches  that  reform  to  be  effective  must  be  temperate. 
Nothing  ever  remains  of  any  artificial  reform  except  what  was 
ripe  in  the  conscience  of  the  masses.  The  unripeness  of  total 
abstinence  is  evident  from  the  failure  of  Prohibition  in  Maine, 
Kansas,  Georgia  and  other  states  where  it  is  at  once  a  scandal 
and  a  farce. 

Second — Prohibition  is  immoral  and  contrary  to  the  teachings 
of  religion  and  physiological  science.  A  form  of  intolerance,  it 
substitutes  enmities  and  hatreds  for  peace  and  goodwill,  the 
foundations  of  the  soundest  morality.  It  breeds  general  demor- 
alization, since  wherever  it  is  enacted  moonshine  distilleries,  little 
kitchen  breweries  and  hidden  wine  presses  flourish ;  the  spy  sys- 
tem, the  most  mischievous  of  all  governmental  agencies,  is  estab- 
lished, and  officials  are  corrupted  by  lawbreakers,  as  always 
where  laws  are  not  sanctioned  by  a  heartfelt  and  vigilant  public 
sentiment.  Further,  Prohibition  is  immoral  in  that  it  breeds 
intellectual  dishonesty  among  its  advocates.  Consider  their 


PROHIBITION  139 

sweeping  assertion  that  even  moderate  drinking  causes  disease 
and  leads  to  vice.  Scientists  gathered  from  all  countries  at  the 
physiological  congress  in  Cambridge  affirmed  officially  that  alco- 
hol "supplies  energy  like  all  common  articles  of  food,  and  that 
it  is  physiologically  incorrect  to  designate  it  as  a  poison,"  also, 
that  "there  is  nothing  to  show  that  a  moderate  daily  use  of 
alcohol  in  any  kind  of  beverage  may  not  be  beneficial  to  health." 

Third — Prohibition  in  California,  especially  on  the  eve  of  the 
Panama-Pacific  International  Exposition,  would  be  an  economic 
blunder  of  colossal  proportions.  Why  should  California  destroy 
her  great  wine  industry?  In  the  cultivation  of  it  she  has  spent 
enormous  sums  of  public  money,  and  has  made  the  fostering  of 
it  one  of  the  duties  of  the  state  university. 

California  has  320,000  acres  devoted  to  viticulture.  The  wine 
industry  represents  an  investment  of  $150,000,000,  yields  annually 
$30,000,000,  supports  75,ooo  persons.  California  breweries  repre- 
sent an  investment  of  $50,000,000,  distribute  annually  $6,000,000 
to  4,000  employees,  consume  annually  $1,000,000  worth  of  Cali- 
fornia barley,  $175,000  worth  of  California  hops,  and  $2,500,000 
worth  of  other  essentials.  They  pay  the  general  government  an 
annual  revenue  of  $1,350,000  and  about  the  same  amount  to  towns 
and  counties. 

In  the  manufacture  and  distribution  of  liquors  282,000  persons 
are  employed  and  dependent.  In  the  distribution  of  liquors 
$10,000,000  is  invested,  and  the  annual  license  tax  paid  is 
$3,000,000. 

So  Prohibition  would  not  only  destroy  great  properties  and 
industries,  impoverish  thousands  of  families  and  increase  the 
army  of  unemployed,  but  it  would  substitute  the  vilest  of  poison- 
ous concoctions  for  our  pure  wines,  beers  and  brandies,  and  make 
every  taxpayer  pay  the  cost  of  the  industrial  cataclysm.  And  to 
what  end?  Prohibition  has  been  a  failure  wherever  the  hobby 
has  been  given  the  dignity  of  legal  sanction. 

Do  Prohibitionists  believe,  as  they  say,  that  the  race  is  dying? 
Mankind  has  been  drinking  thousands  of  years,  never  so  moder- 
ately as  now;  and  Professor  Munsterberg,  greatest  living  psy- 
chologist, holds  that  alcoholic  stimulants  are  essential  to  great 
achievement.  Drunkenness  is  deplorable,  but  it  has  been  steadily 
declining  for  one  hundred  years  without  the  aid  of  Prohibition. 

Vote  "No." 


140  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

Compensation 

Written   especially   for  this  volume  by  Hon.   Eugene  Quigley, 
Attorney-at-Law,  Cleveland,  Ohio 

Compensation,  as  a  method  of  effecting  Prohibition,  appeals 
to  the  fair  minded  citizen  as  an  equitable  solution  of  a  difficult 
problem.  It  is  simply  a  question  of  public  conscience,  of  public 
honesty,  of  public  fair  dealing.  The  American  people  cannot 
afford  to  acquire  a  calloused  conscience  in  dealing  with  the 
rights  and  property  of  their  fellow  citizens.  No  very  vivid 
imagination  is  necessary  to  aid  one  to  understand  to  what  length 
confiscation  by  law  could  be  carried  in  the  hands  of  a  radical 
political  party,  the  public  conscience  having  once  become  accus- 
tomed to  doing  as  it  pleased  with  the  private  rights  and  proper- 
ties of  the  people. 

In  the  past  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  malt,  spiritous  and 
vinous  liquors  was  not  regarded  as  an  illegitimate  business,  for 
the  time  was  when  the  village  tavern  keeper  was  the  first  citizen 
of  his  town.  Be  it  remembered  that  our  own  George  Washington 
owned  and  operated  a  distillery  and  dying  gave  it  by  will  to  his 
wife,  and  that  Abraham  Lincoln  with  his  partner  Berry  owned 
and  operated  a  tavern  at  Springfield,  111.  Indisputable  evidence 
in  the  public  records  of  Virginia  and  Illinois  establish  these 
statements  beyond  question.  It  is  only  of  recent  years  that 
theorists  have  sought  by  propaganda  to  attach  a  stigma  to  all 
who  are  in  any  way  engaged  in  the  liquor  industry.  We  cannot 
pretend  that  the  liquor  question  is  none  of  our  fault.  It  is  all 
our  fault. 

From  the  time  when  license  was  first  put  upon  the  manufac- 
ture and  sale  of  liquor,  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
which  of  course,  means  the  people  of  the  United  States,  has 
been  in  partnership  with  the  manufacturers  of  liquor.  We  have 
all  partaken  of  their  profits  and  have  upheld  them  in  their  indus- 
try, acted  as  guarantors  for  the  quality  and  measure  of  their 
products,  shared  in  their  losses  and  acted  as  their  agents,  until 
the  time  came  when  our  government,  and  therefore  ourselves 
established  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  liquor  upon  a  sound 
financial  basis,  and  made  it  known  that  the  business  was  a  safe 
financial  investment.  Then  came  the  investment  of  American 
money  in  the  securities  of  this  business.  The  man  who  builded 
for  his  own  and  his  family's  financial  safety  in  his  old  age,  and 


PROHIBITION  141 

the  widow  and  orphan  invested  in  the  stocks  and  the  bonds  of 
the  manufacturing  companies.  Can  our  conscience  allow  con- 
fiscation when  we  consider  our  conduct  in  die  past. 

If  we  are  f***™»c  to  deprive  these  people  of  their  property 
by  "due  process  of  law,"  are  we  coming  into  court  with  dean 
hands?  Can  the  government  of  the  United  States — the  people 
of  the  United  States — at  this  day,  when  they  have  led  investors — 
their  own  friends  and  neighbors — into  believing  in  these  securi- 
ties to  such  an  extent  that  they  have  invested  their  savings — 
in  some  cases  fife  earnings — go  out  tomorrow  and  with  one 
sweep  of  the  pen  by  a  new  law,  wipe  out  all  value  of  the  securi- 
ties they  have  created.  "He  who  seeks  equity  must  first  do 
equity." 

If  the  time  has  come,  when  the  experiment  of  nationwide 
Prohibition  must  be  tried  by  this  nation  of  ours,  then  let  us 
enter  into  our  new  state  of  grace,  with  a  clear  conscience.  Let 
us  go  into  this  court  with  clean  hands.  If  the  experiment  is 
worth  anything,  it  is  worth  paying  something  for,  and  we  should 
in  honesty,  as  a  matter  of  moral  right,  pay  back  to  our  partner, 
the  man  in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  liquor,  at  least  a  part 
of  the  money  we  have  received  to  compensate  for  the  losses  we 
compel  him  to  sustain.  Were  all  the  things  true  that  are  said 
of  the  liquor  industry,  still  the  property  the  industry  has  acquired, 
has  come  to  it  lawfully  and  a  government  should,  and  in  the  end 
must,  have  die  same  tenets  of  honesty  which  the  government 
requires  of  its  citizens. 

We  have  had  men  with  such  a  conscience  in  our  government 
— I  venture  to  place  the  name  of  one  of  them  against  the  names 
of  any  of  the  present  day  advocates  of  confiscation.  Had  the 
great  emancipator's  advice  been  heeded,  there  had  been  no  war 
between  our  North  and  South,  for  he  it  was  who  proposed  to 
have  the  government  buy  the  slaves  from  their  owners  and  set 
them  free.  Congress  would  not  agree  to  expend"  the  money  of 
the  people  for  that  purpose.  Result — the  terrible  Civil  War— more 
costly  in  dollars  and  incalculably  costly  in  human  lives.  The 
government  of  Great  Britain  in  1833  abolished  slavery,  by  com- 
pensating the  owners  and  setting  all  slaves  in  the  empire  free. 
That  same  compensation  is  now  being  made  by  the  same  govern- 
ment to  manufacturers  and  traffickers  in  liquor,  who  are  being 
deprived  of  their  business  and  livelihood.  In  1910  Switzerland 
did  the  same  thing.  The  manufacture  of  vodka  by  Russia  was 


142  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

a  government  monopoly  and  when  the  autocracy  decided  to 
discontinue  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  vodka  the  government 
being  a  despotism  the  people  of  course  were  compelled  to  submit. 
Russia  owned  and  controlled  the  business  herself  and  when  she 
decided  to  discontinue,  had  the  right  to  do  so,  it  injured  no 
private  citizen.  France  in  1915  abolished  the  manufacture  and 
sale  of  absinthe  and  is  compensating  the  people  whose  business 
has  thus  been  legislated  away. 

Almost  anything  can  be  made  legally  right  by  law — but  that 
does  not  prevent  the  legislation  from  being  morally  wrong.  It 
can  be  made  legally  right  to  confiscate  the  property  of  every  man 
engaged  in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  liquor  in  tKe  United 
States.  This  means  the  wiping  out  at  a  stroke  of  the  livelihood 
of  citizens  and  their  dependents  in  numbers  running  into  the 
millions.  It  means  that  millions  of  dollars  worth  of  machinery 
will  go  to  the  scrap  pile — that  millions  of  dollars  worth  of 
buildings  become  ruins — that  millions  of  dollars  of  rental  prop- 
erty becomes  almost  valueless.  These  things  do  not  affect  the 
liquor  interests  alone,  they  will  have  a  direct  bearing  upon  the 
finances  of  every  community. 

We  have  shared  in  the  profits  of  the  business  as  tax  payers 
and  citizens — it  follows  as  a  necessary  corollary  that  we  should 
also  share  in  the  losses.  Would  any  one  sanction  as  right  and 
equitable  a  partnership  in  which  both  partners  shared  in  the 
profits,  but  one  did  all  the  work  and  is  charged  with  all  the 
losses  at  dissolution.  Neither  justice  nor  equity  exist  in  such  a 
proposition.  The  only  plan  we  can  pursue  honorably  is  to  deal 
fairly  and  honestly  with  those  in  the  business.  The  advocates 
of  Prohibition  herald  their  theory  as  a  great  public  improvement. 
Public  buildings,  bridges,  highways,  hospitals  and  all  other 
things  that  are  necessary  for  the  comfort,  safety,  or  convenience 
of  the  pubic  are  provided  by  the  state  as  a  matter  of  course  at 
the  expense  of  the  citizens  and  taxpayers.  Why  not  this  also? 
When  the  building  of  public  bridges  or  roads  or  buildings 
necessitates  the  taking  of  private  property,  the  citizen  whose 
property  is  taken  is  always  compensated. 

A  board,  committee  or  commission  should  be  provided  for  by 
law  with  authority  to  appraise  all  property  engaged  in  the  busi- 
ness at  its  actual  value  and  those  engaged  in  the  business  should 
be  compensated  therefor.  The  liquor  industry  would  lose  its 
business,  its  very  existence,  but  would  be  paid  some  part  of  the 


PROHIBITION  143 

actual  cash  loss  and  could  invest  in  some  other  business,  the 
money  would  remain  in  omibfingi  and  thT»s  all  g?»a«y  in  tins 
method  of  settlement.  The  government  would  have  all  the 
piopqty  of  the  industry  and  would  probably  realize  by  salvage 
a  large  percentage  of  the  appropriation, 

The  liquor  industry  even  in  this  way,  must  suffer  a  great 
loss,  bat  would  quit  with  at  least  some  of  its  investment  and  a 
feeling  that  it  had  been  dealt  with  fairly.  A  large  uiiiiiaM  of 
will  be  necessary  to  cany  out  this  plan  but  we  must 
that  we  are  only  paying  part  of  oar  years  of  accu- 
mulated profits.  And  are  purchasing  so  we  are  told — gimlet 
moral  and  physical  safety.  If  that  is  so  we,  and  •uotriilj.  will 
be  the  recipient  of  the  innumerable  benefits  which  Prohibitioo 
adrocates  tell  us  the  future  holds.  Then  we,  and  they  should  be 
willing  to  pay  at  least  a  part  of  the  price  of  the  immense 


They  say  millions  of  money  win  be  saved  to  the  public 
thru  die  dosing  of  penitentiaries,  jails,  poor  houses,  insane 
asylums,  and  public  sanitariums.  Let  us  issue  bonds  in  antki- 
of  this  happy  state  of  affairs  and  as  the  •TiHTtjiif  insti- 
gradually  close  their  doors  we  can  apply  the  money  thus 
and  in  a  very  few  years  the  bonds  will  be  paid  and  the 
whole  matter  settled  for  all  time.  And  no  increase  in  i~i«j*«^» 
will  be  necessary  to  take  care  of  the  cost  if  our  Prohibition 
brethren  are  right.  This  last  of  course  is  merely  a  suggestion, 
based  upon  the  theory  of  Prohibition  advocates  and  no  doubt  a 
more  ceitaim  method  of  taking  care  of  the  situation  could  be 
devised. 

This  is  not  a  question  upon  which  sentimental  arguments  can 
decently  or  honestly  be  used.  Let  us  look  Ihe  cold  facts  in  the 
face  and  dead*  it  upon  its  merits  as  an  equitable  proposition. 
Shall  we  shocA  the  moral  sense  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  by  confiscating  the  liquor  imfji^fy  and  all  its  5^'  yi'it*fp 
and  investment,  or  shall  we  attain  this  later  day  OMfil  righ- 
in  a  manner  that  is  morally  right— by  compensation? 


144  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

Ohio  Home  Rule  Almanac,    p.  27 

Vote   "No"  on  Prohibition    [in   Ohio] — Because 

It  will  throw  100,000  men  out  of  work. 

It  will  lower  wages  and  disastrously  affect  many  allied  indus- 
tries. 

It  will  confiscate  $450,000,000  of  property  values  without 
compensation. 

It  will  cost  the  taxpayers  $32,000,000. 

It  will  interfere  with  the  personal  use  of  beverages. 

It  will  make  the  buyer  of  wine,  beer  and  liquors  in  Ohio  a 
party  to  a  criminal  offense. 

It  will  throw  your  home  open  to  the  private  detective. 

It  will  not  prohibit. 

It  will  substitute  the  "blind  pig"  and  the  kitchen  bar  for  the 
regulated,  licensed  saloon. 

It  will  destroy  the  license  system. 

It  will  breed  the  "sneak"  and  the  "hypocrite." 

It  will  increase  the  pernicious  drug  habit. 

It  will  ruin  the  finances  of  the  cities. 

It  will  divide  the  people. 

Congressional  Record.    52:548-51.    December  22,  1914 

Ten  Reasons  Why  Prohibition  Is  Wrong.    Richard  Bartholdt 

Let  us,  first,  as  the  physicians  do,  diagnose  the  disease,  and 
then  consider  the  proposed  cure.  The  fundamental  argument 
of  the  Prohibitionists  is  that  the  use  of  alcoholic  beverages  is 
the  principal  cause  of  vice,  crime,  insanity,  and  poverty,  and 
the  only  right  way  of  dealing  with  the  matter,  they  say,  is  to 
prohibit,  by  stringent  laws,  the  making  and  sale  and  consequently 
the  use  of  such  beverages. 

I  take  distinct  issue  with  both  propositions.  First,  it  is  not 
true  that  crime,  vice,  poverty,  and  insanity  are,  in  the  great 
majority  of  cases,  caused  by  drunkenness.  Second,  it  is  not 
true  that  Prohibition  will  prevent  those  evils. 

While  drunkenness  is  one  of  the  many  causes  of  human 
unhappiness,  I  contend  it  is  not  the  sole  nor  even  the  chief 
cause.  The  nations  notoriously  opposed  to  the  use  of  alcohol 


PROHIBITION  145 

are  not  freer  of  the  burden  of  misery  than  is  our  own.  Moham- 
medans, for  instance,  are  prohibited  by  their  religion  from  using 
alcoholic  beverages,  and  it  has  not  yet  been  observed  that  their 
lives  are  any  happier  than  the  lives  of  people  in  Christian  lands. 
And  in  our  own  country,  while  intemperance  leads  to  the  com- 
mission of  crimes  against  persons,  yet  the  most  serious  crimes 
against  life  and  property  are  the  result  of  other  causes.  It 
would  be  tedious  to  enumerate  in  detail  the  several  causes  of 
crime.  But  let  us  select  murder  as  a  sample.  The  most  awful 
and  sensational  crimes  against  human  life  have,  as  a  rule,  been 
instigated  by  other  feelings  than  that  of  intoxication.  Neither 
of  our  three  martyred  presidents  was  slain  by  a  drunkard;  nor 
have  the  most  sensational  crimes  against  life  been  induced  by 
drunkenness.  Jealousy  is  more  of  a  menace  to  life  and  causes 
more  murders  and  more  mischief  than  does  intemperance. 
Would  you  try  to  cure  jealousy  by  law?  You  could  no  more  do 
so  than  you  can  promote  Temperance  by  Prohibition. 

It  is  difficult  to  conjecture  where  the  reason  of  Prohibition- 
ists is  when,  in  view  of  the  numerous  crimes  against  women 
and  against  property,  that  one  thing  alone,  and  that  not  the 
chief,  is  singled  out  as  the  cause  of  all  human  misfortune.  The 
truth  is  the  charge  is  not  true. 

The  question  of  insanity  is  subject  to  the  same  consideration. 
Unquestionably  drunkenness  may  lead  to  insanity.  So  do  some 
other  excesses.  The  most  reliable  statistics  of  insanity  give  as 
the  causes:  First,  self -pollution  and  sexual  excess;  second, 
religious  fanaticism  or  excessive  zeal.  And  intemperance  is 
given  as  the  third  cause.  If  the  logic  of  Prohibition  is  to  prevail 
it  would  be  right  to  unsex  mankind,  and  also  to  forbid  altogether, 
those  religious  bodies  whose  practices  or  teachings  lead  to  in- 
sanity. This  alone  shows  the  fatuity  of  unscientific  reasoning 
on  a  profound  and  intricate  social  problem. 

Let  us  glance  at  the  problem  of  poverty — 

Says  a  professor  of  an  American  university  in  a  pamphlet 
against  Prohibition: 

What  causes  h?-  Are  total  abstainers,  other  things  being  equal,  richer 
than  those  who  are  not?  (I  am  not  here  referring  to  drunkards.  That 
question  comes  under  another  consideration.)  It  is  well  attested,  beyond  the 
possibility  of  any  dispute,  that  poverty,  whenever  it  becomes  a  general  social 
condition,  is  not  in  any  sense  attributable  to  the  use  of  beer  and  wine. 
And  any  man  whose  opinion  has  any  value  as  a  student  of  social  economy 


I46  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

knows  that  the  causes,  not  cause,  of  'poverty  are  complex,  are  far  beyond 
the  reach  of  the  human  will,  and  defy  any  and  every  attempt  at  removal 
by  any  act  of  legislators. 

What  is  the  cause  of  human  misery?  What  is  the  verdict  of  history 
and  experience?  Primarily  the  lack  of  intelligence,  the  lack  of  moral 
energy,  the  lack  of  thrift  and  prudence;  and  further,  and  not  least,  long- 
established  customs  and  modes  of  living  that  defy  reason  and  morals. 

It  is  illogical  and  unjust  to  single  out  instances  of  want,  of  crime,  and 
of  ordinary  wrongdoing  and  ascribe  them  to  intemperance  when  human  life 
for  ages  past  bears  testimony  to  other  things  more  productive  of  suffering. 
What  shall  we  say  about  religious  fanaticism,  which  like  a  scourge  has 
cursed  nations  and  communities  and  families?  No  nation  has  been  exempt 
from  this  awful  evil.  But  what  is  the  remedy?  Legislation?  Force?  Only 
so  far  as  to  keep  the  right  of  the  individual  inviolate.  The  panacea  for 
narrowmindedness,  for  religious  intolerance,  is  education. 

Whenever  a  government  has  undertaken  to  rectify  religious  errors  by 
force  of  law  it  has  become  the  abetter  of  persecution,  the  friend  of  hypo- 
crites, the  ally  of  tyranny. 

Is  it  the  duty  of  the  Government  to  deprive  every  man  of  his  personal 
freedom  because  there  are  instances  where  men  abuse  their  freedom?  Are 
there  no  other  forces  at  work  for  sobriety  except  Prohibition?  Is  the 
American  home  without  power  and  influence  for  good?  Is  education  power- 
less in  forming  habits  of  temperance  and  sobriety?  Is  the  influence  of 
woman  for  good  waning?  Must  the  civil  power  stigmatize  as  a  crime  what 
is  not  a  crime? 

Let  our  self-styled  reformers  answer  these  questions  if  they 
can. 

Let  me  show  you  how  fallacious  their  reasoning  is.  Indeed, 
it  is  both  fallacious  and  superficial.  Their  whole  case  is  based 
upon  the  assumption  that  by  withholding  the  supply  you  can 
stop  the  demand;  while,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  supply  of 
beverages — and  of  everything  else,  for  that  matter — is  the  effect 
and  not  the  cause  of  the  demand.  If  by  confounding  cause  and 
effect  you  proceed  from  false  premises  it  is  quite  natural  that 
you  will  arrive  at  false  conclusions.  Suppose  there  were  as 
many  taverns  in  a  city  as  there  are  houses,  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  all  the  people  were  educated  to  be  total  abstainers,  what 
would  happen?  Every  tavern  keeper  would  be  starved  to  death. 
But,  again,  if  you  succeed  in  closing  all  the  saloons,  would  this 
kill  the  appetite  for  drink?  Not  at  all.  The  people  would  either 
find  a  way  to  manufacture  it  themselves  or  they  would  resort 
to  substitutes  worse  than  liquor — to  drugs  such  as  opium,  mor- 
phine, and  cocaine.  Of  this  we  have  ample  proofs,  one  of  them 
being  that  the  consumption  of  cocaine  is  relatively  largest  in 
Prohibition  states.  Another  is  the  testimony  of  responsible 


PROHIBITION  147 

army  officers  before  the  military  committee  of  this  House  to 
the  effect  that  soldier  boys  stationed  in  Maine  and  Kansas  have 
been  discovered  to  receive  supplies  of  cocaine  from  drug  stores 
of  the  larger  cities.  And  the  use  of  thi*  poison,  mind  you,  is 
followed  by  direct  attacks  upon  the  brain  cells.  Furthermore, 
if  people  were  compelled  to  concoct  their  own  drinks  the  vilest 
kind  of  rot-gut  would  take  the  place  of  the  pure  and  well- 
matured  beverages  which  are  now  consumed.  And  have  you 
ever  considered  that  the  process  of  home  manufacture  would  be 
confined  almost  altogether  to  the  strong  spirituous  drinks, 
because  these  alone  can  be  made  by  primitive  means? 

I  have  always  believed  that  true  temperance  could  be  best 
promoted  by  the  gradual  substitution  of  the  milder  and  harmless 
beverages  for  the  strong,  but  if  Prohibition,  as  we  see,  will  have 
the  very  opposite  effect,  can  you  still  claim  it  as  a  Temperance 
agency?  It  is  certainly  plain  from  what  I  have  said  that  you 
cannot  cure  the  drink  habit  by  attacking  the  supply.  By  legal 
edict  you  can  destroy  all  the  distilleries  and  all  the  breweries 
and  all  the  saloons,  but  you  cannot  destroy  or  even  control  the 
human  appetite  by  such  means.  The  only  successful  way  to 
serve  the  cause  of  true  temperance  will  be  to  attack  the  demand, 
and  this  can  only  be  done  by  moral  suasion.  Therefore,  I  make 
bold  to  say  that  if  all  the  good  men  and  women  who  are  inter- 
ested in  this  cause  would  use  their  combined  influence  to  train 
the  youth  of  the  land  in  the  art  of  self-control  and  moderation 
instead  of  invoking  the  power  of  the  law  and  the  police  club, 
their  efforts  would  show  much  more  substantial  results. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  favor  Temperance  and  sobriety  as  strongly  as 
any  of  the  self-constituted  leaders  of  that  movement,  but  I 
believe  neither  in  reforms  so  extreme  as  to  be  repugnant  to 
human  nature  and  therefore  impossible  of  attainment,  nor  in 
methods  the  futility  of  which  has  been  demonstrated  beyond  the 
shadow  of  a  doubt  Every  civilized  country  has  hs  honest  Tem- 
perance movement,  with  moral  influences  as  its  weapon  to  lessen 
the  evil  of  intemperance.  Nowhere,  however,  would  anyone 
dream  of  resorting  to  the  law  as  a  means  of  controlling  the 
tastes  and  correcting  die  innocent  habits  of  the  people.  In  the 
United  States  alone,  as  far  as  we  know,  such  an  impossible 
remedy  is  seriously  attempted.  Here  alone  the  Temperance 
movement  has  degenerated  into  a  crusade  of  extirpation  and  in- 
discriminate destruction.  Because  out  of  a  hundred  retail  stores 


148  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

there  may  be  objections  to  one  we  are  asked  to  close  them  all. 
Because  among  a  hundred  citizens  there  may  be  one  drunkard 
we  are  peremptorily  told  to  deprive  them  all  of  their  personal 
liberty.  No  distinction  whatever  is  made  between  innocent  social 
pleasures  and  boisterous  excesses,  or  between  the  sum  total  of 
contentment  which  is  produced  by  the  social  gatherings  of  hard- 
working toilers  in  which  are  called  the  poor  man's  clubs  and 
the  disgraceful  revelries  of  drunkards — all  are  condemned  alike. 
One  man  may  indulge  moderately  for  sociability's  sake  and  to 
enjoy  the  company  of  his  friends,  another  may  seek  solace  from 
distress  and  misery,  but  the  happiness  of  the  one  and  the  comfort 
of  the  other  are  bruskly  swept  aside  and  all  causes  which  might 
press  the  cup  into  a  man's  hand  are  contemptuously  ignored. 
While  admitting,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  inclination  to  be  his 
brother's  keeper  is  always  strong  in  man's  breast,  yet  it  is  cause 
for  wonder  that  such  an  extremist  program  should  ever  have 
found  favor  with  any  respectable  number  of  free-born  Ameri- 
can citizens.  Excess  is  objectionable  and  unhealthy  in  all  things, 
but  a  failure  to  discriminate  between  excess  and  moderation  in 
matters  and  habits  which  are  not  wrong  in  themselves  will  in 
the  long  run  doom  the  radicals  and  extremists  to  certain  defeat. 

Permit  me  now  to  give  the  House  ten  reasons  why,  in  my 
judgment,  Prohibition  is  wrong.  Many  more  might  be  cited, 
but  I  have  formulated  the  following  as  the  principal  ones,  to 
wit: 

First. — Prohibition  is  a  deathblow  to  the  liberty  of  the  indi- 
vidual because  it  prohibits  what  is  not  wrong  in  itself.  No 
despot  in  history  has  ever  dared  to  prohibit  what  is  morally 
right,  and  the  attempt  to  do  so  would  have  cost  him  his  head. 
The  exercise  of  rights  which  concern  persons  individually,  and 
whose  exercise  does  not  injure  the  neighbor,  is  a  basic  condition 
of  freedom  which  Prohibition  violates.  The  right  to  eat  and 
drink  what  we  please  is  an  inalienable  human  right  of  which 
even  a  majority  cannot  deprive  us  without  at  the  same  time 
robbing  us  of  our  liberty.  But  let  us  go  to  the  bottom  of  this 
matter.  It  has  ever  been  the  aim  of  the  friends  of  liberty  to 
wrest  the  scepter  of  government  from  the  hands  of  individual 
rulers  and  place  it  in  the  hands  of  the  people.  Since  this  has 
been  achieved  in  America  the  problem  of  liberty  was  believed 
to  have  been  solved  for  all  time,  for  no  one  dreamed  that  the 
nation  would  ever  need  protection  against  its  own  will  or  would 


PROHIBITION  149 

ever  tyrannize  over  itself.  The  Prohibition  movement  teaches 
us,  however,  that  sash  Lyiaim>  after  afl  is  possible  under  self- 
government  by  the  majority  misusing  its  political  liberty  or  its 
right  to  govern  for  the  purpose  of  restricting  personal  liberty. 
In  other  words,  we  are  Haling  in  this  case  with  what  John 
Stuart  Mill  called  "the  tyranny  of  die  majority,"  an  evil  against 
which  die  nation  must  protect  itself  if  it  desires  to  remain 
free;  for  individual  liberty,  die  right  of  personal  conduct,  is  an 
inalienable  human  right  which  should  never  be  taken  away 
either  by  majorities  or  by  law  or  constitution.  From  this  we 
can  see  how  much  larger  than  the  mere  drink  problem  this 
question  really  is,  for  if  it  were  right  in  one  respect  to  take 
away  from  die  individual  the  privilege  of  self-control  it  would 
be  right  in  all  other  respects,  and  the  final  outcome  could  be 
nothing  less  than  a  condition  of  complete  slavery. 

Our  opponents  say,  "we  do  not  propose  to  prohibit  dunking, 
but  merely  the  manulactnre  and  sale  of  beverages,0  but  remem- 
ber that  this  hvpoci ilw_<kl  and  insidious  subterfuge  is  die  very 
means  by  which  despots  always  robbed  die  people  of  their 
liberties.  In  accordance  with  recognized  principles  of  law  an 
attempt  to  accomplish  by  indirection  what  you  cannot  do  directly 
is  dishonest  and,  consequently,  immoral.  Hence  our  great  moral- 
ists appear  to  stand  convicted  of  an  unmoral  tiidt.  It  is  true 
that  in  spite  of  all  that  they  have  achieved  great  successes. 
County  after  county  and  state  after  state  have  fallen  into  their 
hands.  Yet  I  have  not  lost  faith  in  die  sound  common  sense  of 
the  American  people.  These  successes  are  solely  due,  as  I  said 
before,  to  the  unparalleled  forbearance  and  indifference  of  the 
people  and  not  to  their  actual  approval  The  fact  is  that  die 
question  is  not  yet  generally  understood.  Once  let  the  people 
fuHy  comprehend  die  menace  to  fiberty  which  is  involved  in 
this  question  and  they  wiH  make  short  work,  I  believe,  of  die 
sappers  and  miners  who  are  «lyt«^*^iii*bg'  the  lotmdations  of  our 


In  this  connection  let  me   again  quote  John    Stuart  M9L 
Speaking  of  individual  liberties  he  says: 

1 

free, 

in  which  they  do  not  exist, 
which  deserres  the  name  is  ti 
so  long  as  we  do  not  attempt  to  deprive 
efforts  to  obtain  H.    Each  is  the  proper 


150  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

bodily,  mental,  or  spiritual.  Mankind  are  greater  gainers  by  suffering  each 
other  to  live  as  seems  good  to  themselves  than  by  compelling  each  to  live  as 
seems  good  to  the  rest. 

Second. — Prohibition  runs  counter  to  human  nature  because 
the  taste  and  appetite  of  man  cannot  be  regulated  by  law. 
Human  laws  are  powerless  against  the  laws  of  nature.  Pass 
an  enactment  abolishing  the  law  of  gravity,  then  jump  out  of  a 
ten-story  window  and  see  what  will  happen.  You  will  be  picked 
up  in  a  shovel.  But,  say  our  opponents,  we  should  at  least 
remove  the  temptation  which  the  saloon  puts  in  our  way.  This 
is  the  silliest  proposition  of  all,  for  if  we  endeavored  to  remove 
everything  which  might  tempt  man  we  would  have  to  abolish 
gold  and  money,  eatables  and  drinkables,  and  finally  even 
woman,  for  all  of  these  might  become  a  source  of  temptation  to 
man.  And  when  we  would  be  finally  through  abolishing  all 
causes  of  temptation  there  would  be  nothing  left  but  desert 
sands  to  cry  to  heaven  bewailing  the  idiocy  of  man.  Why,  the 
Creator  himself  has  placed  temptation  in  paradise  in  the  shape 
of  the  fatal  apple  tree,  but  evidently,  according  to  the  logic  of 
our  Prohibition  friends,  He  has  made  a  serious  mistake  in 
doing  it,  and  if  Eve  had  been  a  Carry  Nation  no  doubt  she 
would  have  chopped  down  that  apple  tree  with  her  little  hatchet. 
No,  gentlemen,  we  cannot  remove  temptation,  but  we  can  and 
should,  by  discipline  and  training,  strengthen  our  power  of 
resistance  against  it. 

Third. — Prohibition  undermines  manliness.  Its  premise  is 
that  men  are  children,  who  must  be  led  in  the  leading  strings 
of  law.  Our  conception,  however,  is  that  a  man  should  volun- 
tarily do  the  right  and  avoid  the  wrong,  and  that  an  interference 
with  his  self-control  in  personal  matters  is  slavery  pure  and 
simple.  If  a  man  is  honest  simply  because  he  has  had  no 
opportunity  to  steal,  we  do  not  take  much  stock  in  his  honesty. 
If  a  man  remains  sober  because  he  has  never  had  an  opportunity 
to  indulge,  we  do  not  think  much  of  his  sobriety.  But  we  do 
rightly  give  credit  to  a  man  who  remains  honest  in  spite  of 
opportunities  to  steal,  and  we  do  believe  in  a  man  who  is 
sober  in  spite  of  all  chances  to  drink.  That  is  the  kind  of 
manly  citizenship  I  believe  in  rearing;  it  is  the  philosophy  to 
which  I  subscribe. 

Fourth. — Prohibition  undermines  respect  for  law.  A  thou- 
sand ways  will  be  found  to  evade  the  law,  and  the  result  will 


PROHIBITION  151 

be  a  nation  of  lawbreakers,  a  condition  which  must  inevitably 
lead  to  lawlessness  and  anarchy.  If  the  82  per  cent  of  our 
population  who  are  moderate  drinkers  will  satisfy  their  wants 
in  spite  of  the  law,  then  every  thief  will  find  justification  in 
stealing,  every  burglar  in  robbery,  and  all  other  criminals  in 
their  evil  deeds,  and  many  will  be  encouraged  to  break  the  law 
who  otherwise  would  have  remained  law-abiding  citizens.  May 
Heaven  protect  us  against  such  a  state  of  affairs! 

Fifth. — National  Prohibition  by  constitutional  amendment  is 
unworthy  of  a  great  people.  A  constitution  should  be  a  bill 
of  rights  for  the  protection  of  life,  liberty  and  property,  and 
especially  for  the  protection  of  the  minority.  By  incorporating 
in  it  mere  police  regulations  our  national  constitution,  of  which 
Gladstone  said  that  it  is  "the  greatest  charter  of  liberty  ever 
struck  off  by  the  mind  of  man,"  will  be  perverted,  defaced,  and 
desecrated. 

Sixth. — National  Prohibition  means  the  complete  subversion 
of  the  fundamental  theories  upon  which  our  system  of  govern- 
ment rests.  By  the  wise  foresight  of  the  fathers  of  the  republic 
the  police  power  was  reserved  to  the  separate  states  upon 
which  the  exclusive  right  to  pass  sumptuary  laws  was  thus 
conferred.  This  sacred  theory  would  be  torn  into  shreds  by 
conferring  police  powers  on  the  national  government  I  say 
"sacred  theory"  because  all  state  rights  men  up  to  this  time 
have  tenaciously  adhered  to  it  A  thing  such  as  federal  police 
power  could  not  be  reconciled  with  it 

Seventh. — Prohibition  means  the  confiscation  of  property 
valued  at  a  thousand  million  dollars,  property  which  has  been 
acquired  strictly  in  accordance  with  state  and  federal  law. 
Even  if  all  the  arguments  of  the  Prohibitionists  were  true,  it  is 
inconceivable  that  a  nation,  whose  sense  of  fair  play  is  pro- 
verbial, could  seriously  permit  the  wanton  destruction  of  such 
gigantic  values.  Do  not  forget  that  the  bonds  of  the  United 
States  are  based  upon  the  wealth  of  the  country,  and  that  by 
the  destruction  of  such  values  the  security  of  the  bonds  must 
necessarily  be  impaired  and  their  market  value  depreciated.  I 
go  so  far  as  to  assert  that  the  so-called  Anti- Saloon  League, 
by  its  crusade  for  the  destruction  of  a  legitimate  business,  is 
violating  the  Sherman  anti-trust  law,  and  should  be  called  to 
account  by  the  Attorney-General  of  the  United  States.  When  a 
few  years  ago  Switzerland  prohibited  the  manufacture  and  sale 


152  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

of  absinthe  a  commission  was  created  to  assess  the  damage,  and 
this  commission  has  paid  indemnities  to  those  who  sustained 
losses  on  account  of  the  new  law,  even  to  the  laboring  men 
employed  in  that  industry.  Here  is  an  example  which  our  mod- 
ern crusaders  should  study.  I  do  not  say  that  compensation 
would  in  any  way  excuse  or  justify  Prohibition,  but  it  is  the 
very  least  which  could  fairly  be  expected,  and  it  is  the  only 
honorable  way  to  go  about  it.  As  regards  the  financial  con- 
sequences of  Prohibition,  a  disastrous  flood  or  an  earthquake 
would  be  mere  child's  play  compared  with  the  destruction  to 
be  wrought  by  it. 

Eighth. — Prohibition  will  take  the  bread  from  the  mouths  of 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  employees  and  workingmen,  not  only 
of  those  employed  in  the  breweries  and  distilleries,  but  of 
coopers,  blacksmiths,  glass  blowers,  wagon  builders,  bricklayers, 
carpenters,  and  so  forth.  Indeed,  there  will  not  be  a  single 
trade  which  would  escape  the  calamity.  To  those  should  be 
added  all  the  small  dealers  and  business  men  who  are  now 
patronized  by  these  laboring  men,  and  the  damage  will  be  felt 
even  by  banks,  wholesalers,  railroads,  and  farmers,  especially 
those  of  our  farmers  who  grow  barley  and  hops.  The  inevitable 
result  would  be  an  economic  panic  unparalleled  in  our  history, 
a  panic  dealing  a  terrific  blow  to  the  whole  nation  and  the 
devastations  of  which  would  equal  those  of  a  civil  war.  And 
what  do  the  uplifters  offer  to  the  men  deprived  of  their  em- 
ployment and  to  the  country  as  a  substitute?  Nothing!  "After 
us,  the  flood!" 

Ninth. — Prohibition  will  cause  a  deficit  in  the  national  treas- 
ury of  at  least  $280,000,000  a  year,  for  this  is  the  amount  which 
the  government  now  collects  from  beer,  wine,  and  spirituous 
liquors,  and  which,  by  the  way,  far  exceeds  our  total  expenses 
for  army  and  navy.  It  is  a  tax  which  every  consumer,  as 
Garfield  said  as  far  back  as  1880,  pays  voluntarily,  because  no 
one  need  pay  it  who  does  not  wish  to.  It  is,  in  other  words, 
the  voluntary  contribution  which  the  moderate  drinkers  of  the 
country  make  to  the  national  household.  How,  I  ask,  should  this 
deficit  be  covered?  It  must  be  by  direct  taxes,  of  course;  but 
we  have  just  imposed  a  new  corporation  tax,  a  new  income  tax, 
and  a  war-revenue  tax.  Do  you  propose  to  pile  an  additional 
quarter  of  a  billion  on  top  of  those?  No  political  party  would 
ever  survive  the  attempt. 


PROHIBITION  153 

Tenth. — Prohibition  does  not  prohibit,  and  for  this  assertion 
I  beg  to  submit  incontrovertible  proof. 

If  the  patent  medicine  of  the  moral  up  lifters  were  effectual, 
the  consumption  of  whisky  should  have  been  reduced  by  at 
least  50  per  cent,  because  half  of  the  territory  of  the  Union 
has  been  voted  dry.  But  what  are  the  figures?  The  truth  is 
that  the  consumption  has  doubled;  in  fact,  has  increased  much 
more  rapidly  than  the  population.  Again,  the  greatest  percent- 
age of  drunkenness  is  recorded  in  the  Prohibition  states,  because 
the  number  of  arrests  for  drunkenness  was  five  to  nine  times 
greater  in  those  states  than,  for  instance,  in  liberal  Wisconsin. 
This  proves  conclusively  that  you  can  vote  a  town  dry,  but 
you  cannot  vote  a  man  dry.  Or  what  was  it  that  our  farmer 
friend  said?  "Yes,"  he  said;  "I,  too,  voted  for  this  movement 
against  alcohol,  for  as  long  as  we  have  beer  and  wine  and 
whisky,  what  do  we  want  with  alcohol?"  Many  a  one  might 
have  thought  so  who,  suffering  no  want  himself,  voted  to  close 
the  saloons  of  his  neighborhood.  But  national  Prohibition  will 
open  the  eyes  of  the  people  who  have  been  thus  misled  and 
fooled.  That  the  above  figures  demonstrate  the  complete  moral 
bankruptcy  of  the  cause  of  Prohibition,  it  is,  I  believe,  unneces- 
sary to  point  out  further  to  those  who  are  listening  to  me. 

Most  of  what  I  have  said  relates  to  the  general  subject  of 
Prohibition.  Now,  permit  me  briefly  to  discuss  the  concrete 
proposition  before  us — the  concurrent  resolution  proposing  an 
amendment  to  the  constitution  providing  for  national  Prohi- 
bition. After  a  careful  analysis  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  this  is  a  misnomer.  It  should  be  called  "a  constitutional 
amendment  providing  for  free  whisky,"  or  "a  measure  to  pro- 
mote home  drunkenness."  Surely  no  one  can  study  its  effect 
without  having  his  suspicions  aroused,  as  well  as  his  doubts,  as 
to  the  sincerity  of  its  proponents.  Are  they,  we  are  justified 
in  asking  ourselves,  really  sincere  in  the  advocacy  of  temper- 
ance or  is  it  merely  a  maneuver,  a  sort  of  rallying  cry  for  the 
unthinking  or  a  signal  from  the  leaders  to  show  the  country 
how  high  they  have  already  dared  to  climb  with  their  peculiar 
nostrum  for  the  ills  of  mankind? 

I  must  confess,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  to  me  it  looks  as  if  the 
leaders,  after  they  had  carried  Prohibition  to  the  doors  of  Con- 
gress, had  suddenly  lost  courage  as  a  result,  perhaps,  of  the 
tremendous  weight  of  their  burden  and  had  mixed  their  offering 

10 


154  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

of  pure  and  adulterated  water  with  a  goodly  alcoholic  flavor 
to  make  it  palatable.  Let  us  see.  The  amendment  reads  as 
follows : 

The  sale,  manufacture  for  sale,  importation  for  sale,  and  exportation  for 
sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  for  beverage  purposes  in  the  United  States  or 
territory  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are  forever  prohibited. 

Why  the  repetition  of  the  words  "for  sale"?  Why  such 
cumbersome  form  of  expression?  Why,  if  the  amendment  was 
designed  to  kill  the  liquor  traffic,  was  it  not  put  in  this  simple 
form :  "The  manufacture,  sale,  transportation,  exportation,  and 
importation,  and  so  forth,  are  forever  prohibited"?  In  answer 
to  these  questions  let  me  quote  the  words  of  a  good  Prohibition- 
ist, a  Mr.  William  A.  Brubaker,  of  Detroit,  Mich.,  who  writes 
to  the  National  Issue,  a  Prohibition  paper,  as  follows: 

Anyone  who  understands  the  English  language  can  readily  see  that  the 
Hobson  amendment  would  not  prohibit  the  manufacture  of  liquor  for  per- 
sonal use.  Nor  its  importation  for  personal  use.  Hobson  admitted  in  his 
speech  in  this  city — Detroit — recently  that  his  amendment  was  not  intended 
to  prohibit  the  manufacture  or  the  importation  of  liquors  intended  for 
personal  use. 

It  will  be  readily  seen  that  this  will  open  the  door  to  all  sorts  of 
evasion  and  frauds  and  will  make  the  enforcement  of  the  law  exceedingly 
difficult.  If  I  may  manufacture  liquor  for  my  own  use,  several  of  us  may 
join  in  such  manufacture.  A  hundred,  a  thousand,  any  number  of  men, 
may  join  in  such  an  enterprise.  Suppose  I  own  a  brewery  capitalized  at 
$300,000.  When  the  Hobson  amendment  is  ratified,  I  at  once  advertise  the 
sale  of  200,000  shares  of  stock  at  $i  each,  with  the  inducement  that  beer 
will  be  furnished  to  stockholders  at  cost.  The  entire  amount  is  quickly 
subscribed  and  I  pocket  $200,000  by  the  transaction.  When  the  amendment 
goes  into  effect  "our"  brewery  is  furnishing  its  product  only  to  its  owners, 
at  cost — of  course,  the  cost  is  heavily  padded  by  enormous  salaries  to  the 
managers — not  a  pint  of  it  is  "for  sale."  Our  product  is  shipped  to  its 
"owners"  in  all  parts  of  the  country,  because,  as  you  notice,  there  is  no 
prohibition  against  its  transportation  in  the  amendment.  A  "cooperative 
brewery"  could  be  set  up  in  every  town  of  any  size  in  America,  unless 
prohibited  by  state  law.  Clubs  would  be  organized  as  they  are  now  in  local 
option  territory,  for  the  importation  of  liquors  not  "for  sale,"  of  course,  but 
for  the  personal  use  of  the  members.  Beer  from  Bavaria,  champagne  from 
France,  whisky  from  Scotland.  The  question  is,  Do  the  temperance  people 
of  America  care  to  spend  money  and  effort  for  the  adoption  of  such  an 
amendment?  Would  its  enactment  better  present  conditions  a  particle? 

My  answer  to  this  last  question  is,  decidedly,  no.  Not  only 
would  it  not  better  present  conditions,  but  it  would  make  them 
infinitely  worse.  It  would  strike  down  the  legitimate  business, 
deprive  the  treasury  of  a  revenue  of  $300,000,000,  which  would 


PROHIBITION  :  =  = 

have  to  be  made  19  by  direct  •••••s«»>  iraMliii  all  the  safe- 
guards which  state  laws  have  thrown  around  die  liquor  traffic; 
would  rob  the  thirty-five  dates  of  the  Union  which  still  legalize 
that  traffic  and  their  great  and  small  municipalities  of  all  their 
income  from  that  source  ;  would  turn  every  house  into  a  private 
distillery,  replacing  the  milder  beverages,  such  as  beer  and  wine, 
wherever  they  are  now  preferred,  by  strong  and  impure  spirits; 
and,  in  a  word,  would  make  whisky  as  free  and  almost  as  cheap 
as  water  everywhere  in  the  country.  In  the  face  of  these  facts, 
how  any  man  who  has  the  cause  of  Temperance  at  heart  could 
vote  for  such  a  proposition  is  more  than  I  can  iiini|Birucnd 
Under  these  circumstances  America  would  be  die  paradise  of 
the  drinker,  as  well  as  die  drunkard;  bat  what  of  that?  Have 
not  die  crusaders  the  **••*!!•«•«•«••  Of  striking  down  a  l*gii""m* 
industry,  of  destroying  values  amounting  to  $1,000,000,000,  with- 
out compensation  and  of  throwing  1,000,000  men  out  of  employ- 
ment, and  at  the  same  time  depriving  them  and  their  famifir* 
of  their  daily  bread?  They  started  out  to  ruin  the  liquor  traffic 
as  a  business,  and  this  the  amendment  will  accomplish,  Along- 
side of  that  i  ii  1  i  jlhia&  else,  iur  hiding  the  real  issue,  maudy, 
Temperance,  is  evidently  a  matter  of  rnnHhiy  consideration. 

I  trust,  let  me  say  in  conclusion,  that  the  vote  on  this 
proposition  will  not  be  regarded  as  merely  a  referendum.  It 
is  not;  and  when  oar  friends  the  Prohibitionists  say  that  Con- 
gress, in  permitting  the  people  to  decide  {be  qiKrfioa,  would  not 
have  to  pass  on  its  merits  they  are  telling  us  what  is  not  true. 
In  the  first  place,  die  people  at  large  will  have  no  chance  to 
vote  on  the  qudlioii  at  all,  because  the  Irgistalmcs  will  decide 
it,  and  this  fact  alone  puts  a  tiiamiilimi  u  ifiimiliililj  OB  oar 
shoulders,  and  for  this  reason:  To  be  ratified  the  amendment 
jroauiiu  the  votes  of  the  legislatures  of  thirty-six  f*n*»*  But 
the  thirty-six  states  which  the  mi  I  mini  are  n  nailing  upon  to 
vote  affirmatively  do  not  I  IMUJIJ  in  a  majority  of  the  people,  so 
that  the  twelve  big  states  with  a  real  majority  would  actually 
be  dictated  to  by  a  minority,  and  it  a  flatter  which  the  gnat 
liberal  states  regard  as  vital  These  slates  are  Xfa^QilfM^n^ 
New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio, 


Missouri,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  and  California.  They 
have  more  representatives  in  Congress  than  die  thirty-six  smaller 
states,  cast  9,000,000  out  of  the  15,000,000  vote  for  President  in 
1912,  have  a  larger  school  attendance,  less  illiteracy,  more  church 


156  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

communicants,  own  two-thirds  of  the  church  property  of  the 
country,  have  two-thirds  of  the  wage-workers,  produce  four- 
fifths  of  all  the  manufactured  products,  pay  two-thirds  of  all 
the  internal  revenue,  three- fourths  of  the  corporation  tax,  and 
five-sixths  of  the  income  tax,  and  have  four-fifths  of  all  savings 
bank  deposits.  According  to  the  census  of  1910  these  12  states, 
by  the  way,  had  only  115  state  prisoners  per  100,000  population, 
while  the  9  Prohibition  states  had  124.  The  number  of  prisoners 
for  grave  homicide  on  January  I,  1910,  was,  in  the  9  Prohibition 
states,  1,846;  in  the  12  license  states  only  1,664. 

To  come  back  to  my  argument,  these  figures  show  conclu- 
sively that  the  only  protection  which  we  have  in  this  instance 
against  minority  rule  must  be  afforded  by  Congress.  Moreover, 
the  founders  of  the  republic  clearly  intended  Congress  to  exer- 
cise its  mature  judgment  in  the  matter  of  amending  the  con- 
stitution or  else  they  would  not  have  provided  for  a  two-thirds 
majority  to  be  required  for  the  passage  of  an  amendment;  and 
is  it  not  also  true  that  the  House,  being  particularly  charged 
with  the  initiative  as  to  all  revenue  bills,  must  carefully  exer- 
cise its  judgment  regarding  all  measures  affecting  the  revenue? 
And  is  it  possible  that  we  could  shirk  that  responsibility  regard- 
ing a  proposition  which  threatens  to  bankrupt  the  treasury? 

In  a  telegram  recently  sent  out  from  Washington  it  was 
stated  that  "the  responsible  leadership  of  the  House  does  not 
regard  Prohibition  as  a  national  issue."  Permit  me  to  say,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  the  destruction  of  lawful  property  by  the  mere 
expression  of  opinion  without  a  day  in  court — "due  process  of 
law" — and  without  just  compensation  for  all  losses,  can  never 
be  a  legitimate  issue  in  either  state  or  nation,  however  an 
insistent  corporation  may  urge  such  piracy  under  the  form  of 
law,  and  however  some  courts  may  permit  it  by  substituting  the 
"police  power"  for  the  bill  of  rights.  Congress  is  an  independent 
body  and  should  never  assent  to  control  which  would  swerve  it 
one  iota  from  the  great  principles  upon  which  our  government 
was  founded. 


PROHIBITION  157 

Bismarck  Daily  Tribune.  August  7,  1909 

Other  Side  of  the  Prohibition  Question 

The  Fargo  Forum  speaks  of  "the  appalling  condition  uncov- 
ered in  the  case  of  a  Casselton  barber  who  sold  beer  and  whisky 
to  boys  from  fifteen  to  eighteen  years  of  age."  There  is  nothing 
particularly  appalling  about  this  circumstance;  it  is  an  ordinary 
condition  under  a  Prohibition  law  that  does  everything  but 
prohibit 

How  long,  we  wonder,  will  the  God-loving,  home-loving, 
honest  law  abiding  citizen  of  North  Dakota  sit  idle  and  allow 
this  damnable  farce  of  so-called  "Prohibition"  to  slide  along, 
carrying  with  it  a  premium  on  criminality  and  a  curse  to  man- 
hood? Better  far  re-submission  and  the  open  grog  shop  than 
the  North  Dakota  blind  pig.  You  ask  why?  Well,  have  a 
care  dear  reader,  if  you  be  one  of  those  individuals  who  believe 
that  the  world  can  be  forced  on  to  a  cold  water  diet;  if  you  be 
one  of  those  who  believe  that  the  Prohbition  law  in  North 
Dakota  is  anything  but  a  curse;  if  you  be  one  of  those  who  sit 
idly  by  and  dream  of  no  nectar  so  sweet  as  that  which  drips 
from  the  slimy  brim  of  "the  moss  covered  bucket  that  hangs  in 
the  well,"  while  your  neighbor  sits  by,  equally  idle,  sipping  3 
cents  worth  of  barley  brew  from  a  bottle  for  which  he  has  just 
parted  with  35  cents;  we  repeat,  have  a  care,  and  read  no 
farther,  lest  that  which  is  written  here  in  truth  should  wreck 
your  faith  in  mankind  and  knock  the  logic  out  of  your  boasted 
Prohibition. 

There  is  hardly  a  city,  village  or  hamlet  in  the  entire  North 
Dakota  empire,  where  beer  and  whisky  cannot  be  purchased 
today.  And  the  average  man  who  sells  intoxicating  liquor  in 
North  Dakota  will  sell  it  to  boys  under  age,  to  women,  to 
habitual  drunkards,  to  dope-fiends,  to  any  and  everybody  who 
has  the  price.  Why?  Simply  because  the  crime  of  selling  beer 
or  whisky  is  of  itself  a  greater  crime  than  selling  to  minors  or 
anyone  else.  When  a  man  goes  into  the  liquor  business  in 
North  Dakota,  he  knows  that  he  is  at  once  a  criminal  by  the 
very  nature  of  his  business,  and  why  should  he  hesitate  to  sell  to 


a  minor: 


Prohibition  is  a  wonderful  thing,  but  it  does  not  prohibit 
The  object  of  Prohibition  is  to  defeat  the  demon  rum,  save 
weak  men,  protect  the  home  and  lessen  the  number  of  criminals. 


158  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

But  it  does  just  the  opposite — at  least  in  North  Dakota.  It 
makes  criminals  of  more  men,  damns  more  young  boys  and 
wrecks  more  homes  than  does  any  other  one  thing;  it  sends 
more  men  to  the  penitentiary  and  makes  more  criminals  than 
does  any  vice  or  hereditary  weakness  to  which  man  is  heir. 
Here  in  North  Dakota  a  man  secures  possession  of  a  dirty  shack 
in  a  remote  corner  of  the  town,  the  rear  corner  of  a  basement, 
or  any  out-of-the-way  place;  he  goes  to  one  of  the  local  repre- 
sentatives of  a  brewery,  who  by  the  way,  has  a  carload  or  two 
of  beer  in  cold-storage,  and  he  orders  a  case  or  two  cases  of 
beer;  if  he  can't  get  it  from  the  cold  storage  representative,  he 
goes  to  the  depot  and  gets  it.  His  cash  outlay  is  probably 
$6  or  $7,  sometimes  much  less.  He  then  opens  what  is  com- 
monly known  as  a  blind  pig  and  he  is  a  full-fledged  liquor 
dealer.  He  knows  that  he  is  a  law-breaker  and  consequently  he 
is  not  particular  who  he  sells  his  liquor  to.  Cross  the  line  into 
Minnesota  and  note  the  difference.  A  liquor  dealer  in  a  high' 
license  state  must  first  invest  hundreds  of  dollars  before  he 
can  engage  in  business.  He  pays  a  license  generally  around  the 
thousand-dollar  mark.  There  are  laws  governing  his  place  of 
business  which  must  be  observed  or  the  revocation  of  his  license 
is  the  penalty.  He  cannot  sell  after  n  o'clock  at  night  or  on 
Sunday.  Minors  are  not  allowed  to  even  enter  the  place. 
Topers  and  habitual  drunkards  are  placed  on  the  "black-list" 
and  they  cannot  secure  liquor.  In  North  Dakota  the  blind  pigger 
generally  has  nothing  invested;  he  sells  more  after  n  o'clock 
at  night  than  at  any  other  time;  he  sells  just  as  much  on 
Sunday  as  the  people  will  buy;  he  sells  to  minors,  women, 
drunkards,  and  everyone  who  has  the  price.  There  are  no  laws 
governing  the  operation  of  his  business  except  the  one  which 
says  he  shall  not,  and  to  offset  this  the  government  sells  him  a 
license  to  do  the  very  thing  which  he  does. 

And  every  citizen  of  North  Dakota  who  buys  a  bottle  of 
beer  pays  a  cash  premium  or  reward  as  an  inducement  to  a 
man  to  become  a  criminal.  The  world-over  a  quart  bottle  of 
beer  sells  for  25  cents — except  in  North  Dakota.  Here  we 
pay  10  cents  a  bottle  extra  as  an  inducement  to  a  man  to 
become  a  criminal.  He  knows  that  if  he  can  evade  the  officers 
of  the  law,  or  if  he  is  able  to  "fix"  things,  or  if  he  happens 
to'  be  a  particular  pet  with  a  pull,  he  can  make  more  money  in 
the  blind  pig  business  than  in  any  legitimate  line.  There  are 
countless  inducements  to  blind  piggers.  Nine  out  of  ten  men 


PROHIBITION  159 

who  sell  beer  in  North  Dakota  and  by  the  very  act  become 
criminals,  could  not  engage  in  the  sale  of  liquor  in  a  high- 
license  state  simply  for  lack  of  capital.  And  the  man  who  does 
operate  a  saloon  in  a  high-license  state  generally  obeys  the  law, 
his  investment  being  so  great  that  he  cannot  afford  to  take 
chances.  And  it  has  been  demonstrated  that  the  sale  of  liquor 
can  be  controlled  under  high-license,  while  North  Dakota  has 
proved  that  it  cannot  be  controlled  in  any  other  way.  The 
saloon  keeper  and  blind  pigger  are  both  undesirable  citizens,  but 
of  the  two,  the  former  is  a  gentleman,  and  not  a  criminal. 

But  there  is  still  another  man,  created  through  the  Pro- 
hibition law  of  North  Dakota,  who  is  the  paramount  criminal 
of  them  alL  He  is  the  man  who  receives  the  $2  per  barrel  or 
the  75  cents  per  case  as  a  premium  on  the  beer  sold  on  his 
premises;  he  is  the  individual  who  rents  his  place  of  business 
for  an  exorbitant  price  to  the  fool  of  a  fellow  who  is  willing 
to  run  his  neck  into  a  noose  of  the  law,  and  pay  his  landlord 
a  commission  on  every  dollar's  worth  of  illegal  business  done. 
He  is  the  individual  who  clothes  himself  with  respectability, 
gains  prominence  in  the  community  in  which  he  lives,  builds  up 
wealth  on  the  unlawful  business  of  a  "tool"  who  takes  all  the 
chances,  and  when  his  "tool"  is  caught  the  fellow  who  should 
answer  for  the  crime  never  gets  any  further  than  to  occasionally 
sign  a  bond  in  the  insignificant  sum  of  perhaps  $500  and  the 
"tool"  skips  out,  justice  is  defeated,  the  bond  is  forfeited, 
and  the  business  is  again  resumed  by  someone  else  who  is 
willing  to  take  the  chance.  This  is  the  inside  of  the  pig 
business  in  North  Dakota,  and  it  can  be  found  without  leaving 
home. 

The  Prohibition  law  is  right  in  principle,  but  it  is  wrong  in 
everything  else.  If  the  sale  of  liquor  could  be  prohibited — then 
indeed  give  us  Prohibition.  But  North  Dakota  Prohibition  is 
a  farce  so  far  as  actual  Prohibition  is  concerned.  The  Fargo 
Forum  and  every  other  newspaper  of  influence  in  the  state  can 
spend  time  and  use  space  in  shouting  about  the  "appalling  con- 
ditions surrounding  the  sale  of  liquor  to  minors,"  if  they  so 
desire,  but  the  Reporter  believes  if  the  same  time  and  space 
were  used  in  showing  the  fallacy  of  the  Prohibition  law  under 
the  non-enforcement  system  in  vogue  hi  North  Dakota,  and  the 
agitation  of  rigid  enforcement  or  abolition  of  the  present  law, 
then  there  would  be  no  such  "appalling  conditions  surrounding 
the  sale  of  liquor  to  minors"  to  record. 


i6o  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

Congressional  Record.   42:5380-1.   April  28,  1908 
The  Personal  Rights  and  Liberties  of  Man.    Herman  P.  Goebel 

Any  legislative  act  that  undertakes  to  regulate  our  eating, 
drinking,  or  the  expenditure  of  our  private  funds  is  sumptuary 
in  its  character  and  affects  the  personal  liberty  and  rights  of 
the  individual.  Mill  says: 

That  the  sole  end  for  which  mankind  are  warranted  individually  or 
collectively  in  interfering  with  the  liberty  of  action  of  any  of  their  number 
is  self -protection. 

The  only  purpose  for  which  power  can  be  rightfully  exercised 
over  any  member  of  a  civilized  community  against  his  will  is 
to  prevent  harm  to  others.  His  own  good,  either  physical  or 
moral,  is  not  a  sufficient  warrant.  He  cannot  rightfully  be 
compelled  to  do  or  forbear  because  it  will  be  better  for  him  to  do 
so,  because  it  will  make  him  happier,  because  in  the  opinion  of 
others  to  do  so  would  be  wise  or  even  right.  These  are  good 
reasons  for  remonstrating  with  him  or  reasoning  with  him  or 
persuading  him  or  entreating  him,  but  not  for  compelling  him 
or  visiting  him  with  any  evil  in  case  he  do  otherwise.  To 
justify  that,  the  conduct  from  which  it  is  desired  to  deter  him 
must  be  calculated  to  produce  evil  to  some  one  else.  The  only 
part  of  the  conduct  of  anyone  for  which  he  is  amenable  to 
society  is  that  which  concerns  others.  In  the  part  which  merely 
concerns  himself  his  independence  is  of  right  absolute.  Over 
himself,  over  his  own  body  and  mind,  the  individual  is  sovereign. 

Every  one — 

says  Kant — 

may  seek  his  own  happiness  in  the  way  that  seems  good  to  himself  provided 
that  he  infringe  not  such  freedom  of  others  to  strive  after  a  similar  end  as 
is  consistent  with  the  freedom  of  all  according  to  a  possible  general  law. 
If  my  action  or  my  condition  generally  can  coexist  with  the  freedom  of 
every  other  according  to  a  universal  law,  anyone  does  me  a  wrong  who 
hinders  me  in  the  performance  of  this  action  or  in  the  maintenance  of  this 
condition. 

Herbert  Spencer  writes : 

Every  man  is  free  to  do  that  which  he  wills  provided  he  infringes 
not  the  equal  freedom  of  any  other  man.  The  liberty  of  each  is  limited 
only  by  the  like  liberties  of  all. 

These  rights  are  fundamental,  and  whenever  a  free  govern- 


PROHIBITION 


and  Ubudgr  f**1!1*  to  regulate  the  conduct 

it  is  founded.  An  overindulgence  of  die  particular  act  while  in 
the  exercise  of  tins  right  is  at  most  a  "Vice."  Vices  are  simply 
errors  which  a  man  may  nMgy  m  his  search  9f^fr  his  own 
happiness.  It  may  be  an  immoral  or  evil  habit,  practice,  or 
conduct  m  which  he  TnM^pifc*1^  resulting  ti'fl**'  an  impure  or 
degrading  appetite  or  passion,  but  vice  is  not  a  crime.  It 
becomes  mala  prokdnta  when  by  statute  yon  make  it  so.  Widely 
dulling  uuwtt  other  offenses  that  are  crimes  wiala  w  s£r  vice 
is  a  chrome  and  habitual  transgression  of  die  moral  law  and 
is  social  in  its  origin,  progress,  and  aggravation. 

Every  voluntary  act  of  a  man's  fife  which  affects  him  is 
filliCT  in  accordance  with,  or  in  conflict  with  natural  laws  of 
matter  JMTUJ  mind  uptM  wl'f*^  1»«  jfrj\frjyl_  mental,  and  f*»*Mion?1 
health  and  well-being  depend.  It  either  gives  him  h«iffincw  or 
unhappincss.  No  one  else  knows  or  feels  or  can  know  or  feel 
as  he  knows  and  feels  the  desire  and  the  necessity,  Ac  hope 
and  the  fear  and  impulse  of  his  own  nature  or  the  pleasure 
of  his  own  ***•*•  •••"•Tl  pfTfn  It  •HIM  then  be  left  for  each  |N  I  IMIM 
to  settle  that  question  for  himself.  I  am  a  firm  believer  in 
individual  freedom.  There  must  be  no  restraint  upon  the  indi- 
vidual until  his  act  injures  other  persons.  His  rights  must  not 
be  withheld  because  social  good  may  in  an  uncertain  contingency 
be  harmed. 

it  must  come  through  Ac  agency  of  the  individual.  Xo  my  mind 
every  legislative  act  enacted  to  forward  it  would  not  hasten, 
but  rather  retard  iL  What  statutory  law  win  curb  the  appetite 
of  man?  Appetite  is  of  divine  creation.  Life  is  itself  f^*H"ff^ 
to  it.  The  aim  of  man  is  to  five.  When  yon  dam  a  stream, 
it  is  not  stopped.  The  current  ceases  as  yon  look  upon  it,  but 
while  the  source  remains  the  stream  gathers  new  MUTPP  and  cuts 
new  channels,  madf  even  more  djugHum  by  the  dam  you  have 
:ntr  re  lit;. 

AM  legislators  let  us  get  this  principle  fixed  in  our  minds— 
that  the  individual  is  not  accountable  to  society  for  his  actions 
in  so  far  as  these  concern  the  interests  of  no  person  but  himself, 
but  whenever  his  actions  are  prejudicial  to  the  iuteiesis  of 
others,  the  individual  is  accountable  and  may  be  subjected  either 
to  social  or  to  legal  punishments  when  one  or  other  is  requisite 


162  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

to  the  protection  of  society.  Underlying  this  principle  is  liberty 
of  action.  The  voluntary  act  or  choice  of  an  individual  is 
evidence  that  what  he  so  chooses  is  desirable  or  at  least  endur- 
able to  him,  and  his  good  is  best  provided  for  by  allowing  him 
to  take  his  own  means  of  pursuing  it.  On  the  other  hand, 
society  has  its  remedy.  If  the  individual  by  his  conduct  dis- 
pleases us,  we  can  express  our  distaste  and  we  may  stand  aloof 
from  him,  reflecting  that  he  bears  the  whole  penalty  of  his  error. 
I  admit  that  the  mischief  which  a  person  does  to  himself  may 
sometimes  seriously  affect  those  nearly  connected  with  him,  and 
in  a  minor  degree  society  at  large,  so  that  when  a  man,  through 
intemperance  or  extravagance,  becomes  unable  to  pay  his  debts, 
or  having  undertaken  the  moral  responsibility  of  a  family  be- 
comes, from  the  same  cause,  incapable  of  supporting  or  educat- 
ing them,  he  ought  to  be  punished,  not  for  drunkenness  or 
extravagance,  but  for  the  breach  of  duty  to  his  family  or 
creditors. 

If  the  resources  which  ought  to  have  been  devoted  to  them 
had  been  diverted  from  them  for  the  most  prudent  investment, 
the  moral  culpability  would  have  been  the  same.  Again,  is 
there  any  reason  why  our  existence  shall  be  constructed  on  one 
or  some  small  number  of  patterns?  When  a  person  who  pos- 
sesses a  reasonable  amount  of  common  sense  lays  out  his  mode 
of  existence,  should  society  interfere?  It  may  not  be  the  best 
mode  in  itself,  but  it  is  his  owji  mode.  We  are  not  all  alike. 
Different  persons  require  different  conditions  for  their  develop- 
ment. Things  which  are  helpful  to  one  person  are  hindrance 
to  another.  The  fact  that  people  have  diversities  of  taste  is 
reason  enough  for  not  attempting  to  shape  them  all  after  one 
model. 

In  a  free  government  sumptuary  laws  are  in  contravention 
of  the  rights  and  liberty  of  the  individual.  Whenever  by  force 
of  law  it  is  sought  to  rectify  "vice,"  that  government  becomes 
the  abettor  of  persecution,  the  friend  of  hypocrites,  and  the  ally 
of  tyranny.  You  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  laws  of  nature 
are  supreme,  and  laws  enacted  by  man  in  opposition  thereto 
would  be  unnatural  and  untenable. 

The  issues  involved  form  the  substance  of  a  great  reform, 
and  it  is  not  difficult  to  appeal  to  a  morbid  sentimentalism  and 
receive  the  applause  of  the  multitude.  I  admire  the  courage  and 
convictions  of  such  men  as  Bishop  Webb  and  Bishop  Graf  ton 


PROHIBITION  163 

and  the  distinguished  Cardinal  Gibbons,  who,  on  January  8  last, 
in  an  interview,  published  in  the  Baltimore  Sun,  said : 


I  have  always  been  in  favor  of  high  license  and  have  made  utt< 
to  that  effect.  In  a  community  as  large  as  Baltimore  I  do  not  consider 
absolute  Prohibition  practical,  for  there  are  so  many  ways  of  getting 
around  legislation.  But  the  high  liquor  license  I  believe  to  be  the  proper 
solution  of  the  problem. 

To  begin  with,  the  revenue  will  be  guaranteed  by  the  increased-  price, 
despite  the  fact  the  number  of  saloons  will  be  greatly  decreased.  The  high 
license  will  do  away  with  the  small  grog  shops,  that  throw  out  many  temp- 
tations for  the  poorer  class  of  people,  and  with  the  number  of  saloons 
decreased,  the  police  will  be  better  able  to  enforce  the  laws.  When  the 
number  of  saloons  is  diminished  the  police  will  be  better  able  to  keep  a 
much  closer  watch  on  all  of  them. 

So,  with  the  revenue  assured  and  the  advantage  placed  in  the  hands  of 
the  police,  many  dangers  can  be  guarded  against  and  many  done  away  with. 

But  extremists  will  continue  to  agitate  absolute  Prohibition, 
and  they  will  not  be  contented  until  our  statute  books  contain 
complete  sumptuary  laws  and  have  taken  away  effectively  every 
personal  liberty  of  the  individual,  and  then  governments  will 
absolutely  control  and  regulate  our  eating,  drinking,  and  the 
expenditure  of  our  private  funds. 

Congressional  Record.  52:495-616.   December,  22,  1914 
National  Prohibition.    James  R.  Mann 

I  am  for  morality  and  against  immorality.  I  am  for  decency 
and  against  indecency.  I  am  for  Temperance  and  against  drunk- 
enness. I  am  for  virtue  and  against  vice.  I  am  for  law  and 
order  and  against  crime  and  disorder.  I  am  for  the  right  and 
against  the  wrong.  So  are  we  all.  But,  notwithstanding  my 
sentiments  and  our  sentiments  universally,  I  am  not  able  to  vote 
for  the  resolution  now  pending  or  for  what  I  suppose  will  be 
offered  as  a  substitute  for  it  The  gentleman  from  Alabama 
[Mr.  Hobson]  has  introduced  in  this  Congress  nine  distinct, 
separate  Prohibition  amendments  to  the  constitution.  Just  which 
one  of  them  we  will  be  called  upon  to  vote  for  I  do  not  know. 
They  all  differ,  and  I  venture  to  say  that  in  now  considering  this 
constitutional  amendment  there  is  not  a  member  of  this  House 
besides  the  gentleman  from  Alabama  who  knows  what  the  dif- 
ferences are  in  these  different  Prohibition  resolutions  offered  by 
him;  and  I  do  not  believe  that  he  knows.  [Laughter.] 


164  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

The  tendency  of  governments  everywhere  has  always  been 
toward  centralization,  and  whenever  that  tendency  has  proceeded 
until  local  powers  have  been  transferred  from  the  local  govern- 
ments to  the  central  government  history  shows  that  from  its 
own  weight  the  government  has  broken  down  and  either  revolu- 
tion occurred  or  dissolution  of  the  country. 

What  is  the  proposition  now  before  us  ?  Today  alcohol  is  one 
of  the  cheapest  and  most  easily  produced  products.  A  man 
with  a  book  before  him  can  manufacture  an  alcohol  still  from 
which  he  can  produce  alcohol  at  a  cost  of  probably  not  to  exceed 
15  to  30  cents  a  gallon,  privately,  without  publicity,  except  that 
the  Government  of  the  United  States,  now  levying  a  very  high 
tax  upon  the  production  of  alcohol,  finds  it  necessary,  in  order 
to  protect  its  revenue,  to  follow  up  the  producers  of  alcohol 
unless  they  pay  the  government  tax.  And  the  government  tax 
is  very  high,  so  that  the  main  cost  of  alcohol  today  is  the 
government  tax  upon  it. 

As  I  understand  this  proposition,  it  is  not  intended  that  the 
government  shall  hereafter  levy  tax  upon  the  production  of 
alcohol  or  alcoholic  beverages.  The  government's  interest  in 
protecting  the  revenue  no  longer  exists.  The  national  govern- 
ment is  no  longer  directly  interested,  so  far  as  revenue  is  con- 
cerned, in  preventing  the  cheap  production  of  alcohol.  And  not 
only  that,  this  resolution  does  not  prohibit  the  manufacture  of 
alcohol  ad  libitum.  There  is  not  a  word  in  the  resolution  or 
the  proposed  amendment  which  looks  to  the  prohibition  of  the 
manufacture  of  alcohol,  or  even  of  alcoholic  beverages,  unless 
they  are  for  sale.  We  cannot  reach  the  manufacture  of  alcohol. 

Now,  how  will  this  amendment  be  enforced?  The  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  will  either  do  one  of  two  things.  It 
will  either  have  a  government  agent  spying  out  the  places  in 
every  locality  -in  the  United  States — government  spies  every- 
where— or  else  the  government  will  not  attempt  to  prohibit  the 
manufacture  for  sale  of  alcoholic  beverages.  It  is  the  tendency 
everywhere,  I  know,  for  the  local  authorities  to  endeavor  to 
have  the  general  government  enforce  a  law,  make  a  law  upon 
matters  where  the  local  authorities  fail,  upon  the  idea,  which 
is  not  correct,  that  the  government  in  Washington  can  better 
enforce  a  law  in  California  than  the  people  of  California  can 
enforce  it.  And  so  long  as  the  government  has  the  incentive 
through  the  raising  of  the  revenue  the  government  attempts 
to  enforce  the  law  concerning  the  manufacture  of  alcohol.  Do 


PROHIBITION  165 

you  propose  by  this  amendment  to  have  the  government  or  a 
government  officer  or  agent  or  spy,  as  you  may  please  to  call 
him,  in  every  township  in  the  Unitel  States  to  detect  the  pro- 
duction of  an  article  which  a  farmer  or  a  laborer  in  his  cellar 
can  produce  without  expense  and  without  publicity,  and  which 
when  produced  is  still  legal  under  the  amendment  unless  it  be 
made  for  sale? 

I  know  it  is  suggested  that  you  can  confer  the  power  of 
enforcement  both  upon  the  general  government  and  upon  the 
states.  It  is  impossible  as  a  governmental  matter  to  make  each 
of  two  sovereigns  supreme.  You  cannot  confer  upon  the  gen- 
eral government  the  power  to  enforce  a  law  or  a  constitutional 
amendment  and  at  the  same  time  confer  the  same  power  upon 
the  states  without  inevitable  conflict  and  disaster.  The  govern- 
ment would  not  enforce  such  an  amendment.  But  you  have 
taken  away  the  governmental  control  of  license.  The  govern- 
ment now  keeps  track — or  attempts  to  do  so — of  every  manufac- 
turer of  alcoholic  liquor,  of  every  blender  of  alcoholic  liquor, 
of  every  rectifier  of  alcoholic  liquor,  of  every  wholesale  and 
retail  dealer  in  alcoholic  liquors;  but  when  you  forbid  by  this 
amendment  these  things  the  government  can  no  longer  keep 
track  of  them  by  license  or  otherwise.  It  then  becomes  a  matter 
of  detection  or  spying.  The  government  of  the  United  States 
wifl  not  be  permitted  by  the  people  in  the  different  localities  in 
the  long  run  to  foster  and  put  upon  them  thousands  of  agents 
or  spies  to  affect  them  in  their  immediate  locality.  And  the  result 
will  be,  if  this  amendment  should  be  adopted,  that  liquor  will 
become  free,  easily  made,  will  sell  for  25  or  30  or  40  or  50  cents 
a  gallon  with  no  prohibition  on  its  manufacture,  no  penalty  for 
its  sale,  unless  you  catch  the  man  at  it  with  a  government  spy, 
the  government  itself  no  longer  having  any  financial  interest  in 
detecting  the  crime.  You  have  practically  taken  away  from  the 
state  the  power  to  make  and  enforce  their  own  laws  on  the 
subject.  You  cannot  have  government  control  and  state  control 
at  the  same  time. 

You  say  the  states  cannot  control  it  If  the  people  of  a 
locality  cannot  enforce  their  local  laws,  it  will  never  be  possible 
for  the  national  government  successfully  to  enforce  them.  It  is 
proposed,  is  it,  where  a  man  has  manufactured  alcohol  at  a  cost 
of  30  cents  a  gallon  in  his  cellar,  legitimately,  permitted  by  the 
law,  and  has  secretly  sold  it  to  somebody  else,  to  have  the  gov- 
ernment agent  seize  him  and  carry  nitn  a  hundred  or  two 


i66  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

hundred  miles  to  be  tried  in  a  federal  court  instead  of  being 
tried  in  local  state  courts?  Is  it  the  proposition  that  the  enforce- 
ment of  these  ordinary  police  regulations  which  must  always 
depend  in  the  main  for  their  enforcement  upon  the  sentiment 
of  the  local  community  shall  be  brought  about  by  having  the 
offenders  dragged  into  the  federal  courts  for  trial? 

If  that  is  attempted,  it  will  break  down  of  its  own  weight. 
The  result  will  be  as  it  was  years  ago,  before  the  federal 
government  imposed  a  high  tax  upon  alcoholic  spirits,  that 
whenever  a  farmer,  a  laborer,  a  merchant,  or  otherwise,  desired, 
he  will  produce  alcohol  and  give  it  to  his  men,  like  they  used 
to  dole  out  liquor  in  the  harvest  fields.  It  cost  nothing  to 
produce  it,  there  was  no  tax  upon  it,  and  no  way  of  preventing 
it.  You  have  taken  away  with  this  resolution  the  authority  of 
the  local  governments  to  protect  themselves.  You  attempt  to 
confer  that  upon  Washington.  Well,  you  will  not  get  Wash- 
ington unduly  excited,  or  the  Government  in  Washington  unduly 
excited,  because  some  man  is  illegally  selling  whisky  in  Port- 
land, Me.,  or  in  Portland,  Ore.  They  do  not  get  too  much 
excited  when  they  sell  liquor  illegally  in  the  city  of  Washington. 

I  understand  very  well  how  a  wave  of  excitement  goes 
through  and  over  a  country.  The  bitterest  persecutions  which 
have  ever  been  had  have  been  had  under  the  name  of  religious 
fervor.  People  get  the  impression  that  they  want  to  accomplish 
a  certain  good,  as  they  used  to  when  they  proposed  to  make  a 
man  profess  a  certain  religion  in  order  to  save  his  soul,  and 
if  he  would  not  save  his  soul  in  that  way  they  would  destroy 
his  body.  Good  purposes,  laudable  desires ;  but  you  must  test  a 
proposition  by  its  natural  results,  by  the  evolution  which  comes 
from  it;  and  I  declare  to  you  that  in  my  opinion,  as  a  student 
of  government  for  years,  the  effort  to  confer  upon  the  national 
government  the  power  to  control  the  manufacture  of  alcoholic 
liquors  for  sale  and  to  prohibit  them  will  result  in  no  tax,  no 
license,  no  control  over  the  production  and  sale,  and  will  render 
them  cheap  and  easy  to  obtain  in  every  part  of  the  United  States, 
with  no  government  properly  equipped  to  prevent  it,  and  that 
instead  of  prohibiting  you  will  have  made  liquor  almost  free. 

I  live  in  a  Prohibition  district  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  created 
by  an  ordinance  which  I  drew  years  ago,  largely  enforced  by 
the  aid  of  the  good  people,  its  enforcement  aided  by  the  saloon 
keepers  on  the  outskirts.  Today  the  whisky  manufacturers  aid 
the  government  as  far  as  they  can  in  the  enforcement  of  the 


PROHIBITION  167 

law  requiring  the  payment  of  a  heavy  tax  upon  whisky,  because 
it  is  to  their  interest  to  prevent  "moonshine"  whisky  being  made, 
and  most  of  the  information  which  copes  tor  the  government  in 
regard  to  attempted  illicit  stills  canes  from  liquor  men,  who 
feel  die  competition  and  put  Ac  government  on  notice  and  on 
guard.  But  when  the  tax  is  all  removed  they  will  no  longer 
have  that  incentive.  Who  will  give  the  information?  How  will 
yon  discover  Of  manufacture  and  $afp  o£  llntiM*-  beverages  ? 
The  government  is  far  away.  The  local  people  may  not  be  in 
favor  of  the  enforcement  of  the  law  there,  as  many  of  them  are 
not  in  favor  of  the  enforcement  of  all  law. 

The  Prohibitionists,  so  called,  are  on  the  wrong  track.  I 
respect  their  sentiments.  I  have  great  regard  for  them  fcijoa- 
afly.  But  the  way  to  obtain  the  restriction  of  the  sale  of  alco- 
holic beverages,  like  the  way  to  enforce  any  other  moral  propa- 
ganda, is  through  local  authorities,  and  not  fty  depending  upon 
a  strong  central  government  located  far  away. 

Brief  Excerpts 

Take  away  alcohol  and  you  inevitably  invite  excess  in  some 
other  direction.— Dr.  Sydney  HUlier  in  "Popular  Drugs,"  p.  34. 

As  the  various  states  vote  dry  the  operations  of  the  boot- 
legger grow  larger. — Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Internal 
Revenue  for  1914,  p.  29, 

Often  drunkenness  is  not  the  cause  of  die  mental  abnormity, 
but  its  manifestation,  a  fact  well  known  to  every  ^g*^Jcfr — Dr. 
J.  Starke  in  "Alcohol,  the  Sanction  for  Its  Use,"  p.  29. 

I  think  that  a  factor  in  the  solution  of  die  intemperance 
problem  in  this  country  [England]  would  be  to  allow  die  practice 
of  free  brewing  and  to  pass  a  law  decreeing  that  beer  should 
contain  no  more  than  3  per  cent  of  alcohoL-^Dr.  Bryce  in  "The 
Laws  of  Life  and  Health,"  p.  106. 

We  find  that  drug  addictions  and  insanity,  including  the 
special  forms  of  mental  diseases  directly  attributable  to  ^Hifctfl- 
ism,  seem  to  flourish  best  in  Prohibition  territory,  without  a 
compensating  decrease  in  the  number  of  any  other  maladies.— 
Dr.  Edward  H.  Williams  in  Everybody's  Magazine.  31 : 278. 

Experts  on  industrial  accidents  generally  agree  that  alcohol- 
ism is  but  a  minute  factor  in  industrial  accidents  and  on  die 
whole  does  not  directly  cause  I  per  cent  of  the  number.  It 
may  have  an  additKT*"!  contribuloiy  effect  in  certain  cases, 


168  PROHIBITION 

possibly  to  the  extent  of  a  total  of  2  per  cent. — Gustavus  Myers 
in  the  American  Federationist,  p.  351,  May,  '15. 

One  of  the  statements  most  frequently  made  is  that  the 
great  majority  of  crimes  are  due  to  drink.  It  would  be  more 
accurate  to  say  that  most  prisoners  were  under  the  influence 
of  drink  at  the  time  they  committed  the  breach  of  the  law  for 
which  they  have  been  convicted.  The  great  majority  are  petty 
offenders. — James  Devon  in  "The  Criminal  and  the  Community" 
P.  52. 

The  sum,  then,  of  my  observation  and  experience  [after 
traveling  in  America]  is,  that  the  repression  of  liquor  selling  is 
possible  and  does  exist  in  small  villages  under  peculiarly  favor- 
able circumstances;  that  hitherto  it  has  proved  a  failure  in  all 
towns  which  swell  beyond  the  dimensions  of  a  village.  Where 
it  is  least  needed  it  is  practicable ;  where  it  is  much  needed  it  is 
impracticable. — Justin  McCarthy  in  Fortnightly  Review,  16:  179. 

Any  unbiased  observer  of  conditions  in  Atlanta  must,  in  fact, 
be  forced  to  the  conclusion  that,  under  the  present  [1909] 
prohibitory  law,  beer  is  being  openly  sold  and  whisky  can  be 
purchased;  and  that,  while  there  is  no  decrease  in  city  and 
state  cases  in  the  police  court,  there  is,  on  the  contrary,  an 
increase  of  perjury  on  the  witness  stands  and  of  easily  handled 
juries  in  the  city  courts. — S.  Mays  Ball  in  Putnam's  Monthly. 
5:701. 

To  the  working  classes  [in  England]  whose  food  is  very 
much  restricted  in  variety,  quantity,  and  quality,  to  whom  meat 
is  a  luxury  and  whose  usual  diet  is  bread  and  cheese,  or  some 
equally  undelightful  substance,  life  without  beer  or  some  other 
alcoholic  drink,  would  be  even  more  dull  than  it  is  now.  The 
need  of  alcohol  in  this  case  is  much  greater  than  in  the  case  of 
those  more  fortunate  individuals  who  have  abundance  and 
variety  of  other  food. — Dr.  Sydney  Hillier  in  "Popular  Drugs" 
p.  63. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  poverty,  and  especially  the  poverty 
of  the  masses,  is  the  result  of  drink,  but  no  statement  was  ever 
more  grotesquely  untrue.  That  drink  aggravates  poverty  is 
obvious ;  but  no  one  can  shut  his  eyes  to  the  fact  that  all  poor 
people  do  not  drink,  and  that  all  teetotalers  are  not  rich.  Drink 
is  often  a  cause  of  poverty;  but  to  attribute  poverty  mainly  to 
drink  is  wantonly  to  libel  thousands  of  our  poorer  fellow- 
citizens  who  live  far  cleaner  lives  than  many  of  their  critics. — 
James  Devon  in  "The  Criminal  and  the  Community,"  p.  68. 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 
TO—*      202  Main  Library 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

Renewals  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 

Books  may  be  Renewed  by  calling     642-3405. 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

KCCtUC     JAN  .  8 

1991 

MAY  16«ti7 

^^^^FW 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
FORM  NO.  DD6  BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


®s 


--I,'40  (6936s) 


U.C.  BERKELEY 

upmiiniuintt 


OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


